Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. THRU' G.M. versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY OF REVENUE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corp. Ltd. Thru' G.M. v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Of Revenue & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 753 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15121 (6 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

CJ's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 753 (DEFECTIVE) OF 2007.

U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development corporation

Ltd., Unit Ramkola, district Kushinagar, through its

General Manager.

............Appellant.

Versus

1. State of U.P. through its Secretary of Revenue.

2. Dy. Labour Commissioner, U.P., Gorakhpur.

3. Poorvanchal Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, Gorakhpur

Ramkola Unit, through its Secretary

..........Respondents.

CORAM: Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar,J.

Date: 06.09.2007

Advocate for the appellant: Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava,

Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

Advocate for the respondents: Sri Y. K. Yadav, Standing Counsel,

Sri Shyam Narain

Oral Judgement (Per: H. L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava in support of this appeal and Sri Y. K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shyam Narain as well, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

2. The appellant herein had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge wherein appellant had sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7th January, 2007, passed by respondent no. 2. That was the prayer no. 1. The second prayer was to seek a writ of mandamus to restrain the Deputy Labour Commissioner from initiating any recovery proceedings or any recovery measure in pursuance to the order dated 7th January, 2007.

3. The appellant herein is running a sugar mill and the workers employed by the sugar mill are required to be retained during off season when the mill is not functioning. The retention allowance is provided to such workmen and the rates depend upon whether they are skilled, semi skilled, clerk or supervisor. So far as the retention allowance is concerned, the validity thereof has already been upheld by a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar and Sugarcane Corporation Ltd. Versus Satyendra Upadhyay in Special Appeal No. 499 of 2005 decided on 16.1.2005. We are informed that the S. L. P. against that judgement has been dismissed by the Apex Court.

4. The impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner is upheld and a direction is given to them that for the crushing season 2003-04 they should be paid retention allowance as per the law and the writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge and so was the review petition filed by the appellant thereafter. These two orders have been challenged herein in this appeal.

5. Mr. Srivastava appearing for the appellant tries to raise the question of validity of retention allowance. There is no question of going into that question once over and we uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge. The second issue is regarding the correct number of employees working in the appellant's mill who should be eligible to receive this retention allowance and also correct rates at which retention allowance should be calculated.

6. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the recovery proceedings have not been concluded. It appears that the parties have filed their charts before the Deputy Labour Commissioner but the final determination has not yet been arrived at. So far as the prayer No. 2 is concerned the validity thereof will be gone into by the Deputy Labour Commissioner after he looks into the pleadings of the parties. No recovery certificate has been issued as yet.

7. No material has been placed before us that final recovery certificate has been issued though there has been payment of some amount. The complete determination does not appear to have been done so far.

8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is not entertained and is dismissed.

Date: 06.09.2007.

HR

(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar,J.)


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.