Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 26758 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 6662 (11 April 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.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26758 of 2002

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

List revised. No one appears for the respondent No.3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner  was a workman of Respondent No.3, M/s Heera Lal Vishwakarma, Watch Company, 45/49, Jhonston Ganj, Allahabad. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 09.07.1999. The petitioner, therefore,  filed an application before Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad. In the said application, copy of which is Annexure-1, the petitioner stated that he was an employee of Respondent No.3 since 01.08.1986 and his services were wrongly terminated on 09.07.1999. Respondent No.3 filed reply to the said application. The case was registered as C.P. Case No.150 of 1999, Vinod Kumar Vs. M/s Heera Lal Vishwakarma Watch Company. In the reply, it was stated that some advance had been given to the petitioner by the employer and in stead of returning the advance, petitioner absented from the duty after 02.07.1999. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad, through the order dated 30.07.2001, refused to make the reference. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. The one line reason given for the refusal is as follows:-

"Rejected on the ground of voluntary abandonment of service duty by the workman concerned"

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Sharad Kumar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi AIR 2002 SC 1724 : 2002 (93) FLR 826. In the said authority, it has been held that the function of the Appropriate Government in making reference is an administrative function and not a judicial or quashi judicial function and that in performing this administrative function, the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself, the determination of the lis, which will certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. For the said proposition, in the said authority, reliance was placed upon several earlier authorities of the Supreme Court including Telco C.D. Mazdoor Sangh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1989 SC 1565 : 1989 (59) FLR 734.

In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that adjudication was not permissible for Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Deputy Labour Commissioner to pass appropriate order in the light of the above Supreme Court authority.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

Date:11.04.2007

NLY/26758/02


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.