High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Charan Singh v. State Of U.P. & ors. - WRIT - B No. 54257 of 1999  RD-AH 971 (30 September 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54257 of 1999
Charan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking relief for quashing the order dated 11.11.1999 annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the application moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 6-H (I) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act' has been disposed off on the ground that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to dispose off the same, because the question of designation of the post is in dispute between the parties.
2. I have looked into the record of the case and find that this Court in a similarly situated matter of an another employee Sri Mahipal Singh in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1597 of 2000 has vide its order dated 17.1.2000 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of tube-well mechanic which is the post equivalent to the post of tube-well operator. However, no such orders have yet been issued in the case of the petitioner by the respondent no.2 till date. Vide award-dated 24.2.1997 passed in adjudication Case No.139 of 1992 between the petitioner and the respondents, the Tribunal has declared that the petitioner be reinstated on any post equal to the post of tube-well operator with a direction that he shall not get any back wages. In the award, it has been held that vide copy of the government order dated 30.7.1975, the post of tube-well operator was abolished but it was also mentioned therein that the work which was being done by the tube-well operator be now be taken from other class IV employees working as Matsya Prakshetra and in place of tube-well operators, the post of Nalkup mechanic is created. Thus, according to the said government order, the posts were not in fact abolished but only the nomenclature of the post was changed. In view of this award, the petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-respondent no.3 under Section 6-H (I) of the Act to recover money due to him from the respondents 1 & 2. The respondent no.1 passed the impugned order declining to pass any orders on the same, which is wrong and bad, because in the present case the respondent no.1 should have exercised its authority under Section 6-H (I) of the Act.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and observations made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 11.11.1999, annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by the respondent no.3, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to pass suitable orders and dispose off the application moved by the petitioner under Section 6-H (I) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
September 30, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.