Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amar Singh v. U.P. State Ware Hosing Corporation And Others - WRIT - A No. 21270 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 8845 (10 May 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).


Court No. 26

Order on

Civil Misc. Restoration Application


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21270 of 2006

Amar Singh


U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation & Others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not a Labour but is a Clerk in the respondent-department, as such the order and judgment dated 7.3.2007 relegating the petitioner to the Labour Court on the ground of alternative remedy may be recalled.

"Workman" has been defined under Section 2 (z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as under: -

"(z) "Workman" means any person (including apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."

  Not only this in the Act the dispute may be between the employer and employee, between employer and employer and between employee and employee.

Thus, it is hardly material whether the petitioner is workman or employer or an employee for the purpose of raising an industrial dispute for adjudication of disputed questions of facts.

In view of the fact that the question raised by the petitioner requiring decision on facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, there is no question for recall/restoration of the order as the judgment passed by the Court is not affected by the question raised by the petitioner that he is clerk and not labour which otherwise also is incorrect in view of the definition of the workman quoted above.

The application is accordingly rejected.

Dated: 10.5.2007





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


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 |

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