Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOM NATH CHINYOTI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Som Nath Chinyoti v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 27021 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10593 (12 June 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27021 of 2007

Som Nath Chinyoti

Versus

State of U.P.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Show cause notice  was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2007 by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut under the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice on 08.02.2007. Thereafter order dated 07.05.2007 has been passed directing that a sum of Rs.20,000/- be got deposited.

Contention of petitioner is that once petitioner had filed detailed and elaborate reply, the  Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut was duty bound to consider the reply filed by the petitioner and then order imposing penalty ought to have been passed. Here, in the present case  reply submitted by petitioner has not at all been adverted to in its correct perspective and straightaway penalty has been imposed by means of impugned order dated 07.05.2007.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that reply has been considered and it has not been found satisfactory, as such penalty has been rightly imposed on the petitioner under the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position which emerges is to the effect that reply to show cause notice had been filed by the petitioner on 08.02.2007. The impugned order clearly indicates that the reply so submitted by the petitioner has not not at all been considered and adverted to in its correct perspective, and casually without application of mind and without undertaking any exercise, whatsoever,  in that behalf, order impugned has been passed and penalty has been imposed, merely by saying that the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Once reply to show cause notice was submitted, then it was bounden duty of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut to have considered and adverted to the same, and then by giving reasons as to why reply was not satisfactory, order ought to have been passed. In these circumstances and in this background, order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in is judgment reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785, Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Of India v. Union of India and another and AIR 1974 SC87, Union of India v. M.L. Kapoor and ors. has held that reasons are link between the facts and findings recoded. In absence of reasons the findings recorded, are legally not sustainable. The legal situation has further been explained in the  Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and J.T. 1990 (3) SC 630, Sri  S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, wherein recording of reasons has been held to be the third principles of Natural Justice. It is also settled law that orders are to be judged on reasons recorded therein (Reference AIR 1978 SC 851, Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commission, New Delhi and others).

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.05.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut for passing fresh order after considering and adverting to the reply submitted by petitioner in its correct perspective, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

12.06.2007

SRY.                      


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.