Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Achanera & Anr Vs. Vinod Kumar  Insc 111 (30 January 2008)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and
dismissing the review petition filed by the present appellant.
factual scenario need not be referred to in detail. In a nutshell the position
is as follows:
aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court
dated 20.2.2003 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). The dispute which was referred to before
the Labour Court for adjudication read as follows:
termination of services by the employers of their workman Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o
Shri Shiv Charan Lal, Mandi Assistant w.e.f. 10.01.1998 is legal and/or valid?
If not, then to what relief or benefit the workman is entitled to get?"
Labour Court after issuance of the notice to the parties held that the Subzi Mandi
was not an industry and further the workman had been appointed for 89 days on
ad hoc basis. The said award was challenged before the High Court. The matter
was listed on 27.8.2003 for the first time and on that date the judgment was
reserved and delivered on 19.12.2003.
According to learned counsel for the appellants the notice was given on
23.8.2003 and the matter was listed on 27.8.2003. Though the judgment was
purportedly delivered on 19.12.2003, same was not in the list. The parties were
not aware of the judgment delivered which is evident from the fact that the
counter affidavit was filed by the present appellant on 16.1.2004 and the
rejoinder by the present respondent was filed on 29.4.2004. It is, therefore,
submitted that without issuance of the notice, on the first day itself the
judgment was reserved and the award of the Labour Court was set aside.
position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
the aforesaid background, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and
remit the matter to it for fresh adjudication. To avoid unnecessary delay, let
the parties appear before the High Court before the appropriate Bench on 14th March, 2008 without further notice. Since the
counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed, they are to be taken into
consideration and if any other further documents are to be filed, the same
shall be done by the
7th March, 2008.
the Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to fix an appropriate Bench
for hearing of the matter.
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Pages: 1 2