Vinod Kumar Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner

Vinod Kumar vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Uttaranchal Decided Oct 20, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/513909

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/513909
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: Rajesh Tandon, J.
Decided On: Oct 20, 2003
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1255 of 2003 (SS)
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 14A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar

Advocate Lokpal Singh, Adv.

Respondent

Assistant Labour Commissioner

Advocate Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 14A
Cases Referred: Ranipur v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors.
Reported In: (2004)2UPLBEC77

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - if the amount, aforesaid is deposited, it shall be disbursed to the respondent workmen in terms of the award dated 5.7.1997. in the event of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, aforesaid, within the stipulated time, this order would not be an impediment in launching criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 14-a of the act......commanding the respondent to initiate the prosecution against the officers of the b.h.e.l., ranipur, haridwar in pursuance of section 14-a of u.p. industrial dispute act, 1947, on the basis of application dated 5.9.2003.2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and other employees are working in the b.h.e.l., ranipur, haridwar. they have raised labour dispute before the assistant labour commissioner which was referred to the presiding officer, labour court, dehradun being industrial case nos. 31 of 1990 to 44 of 1990. the labour court has passed an award on 5.7.1996 in favour of the employees against the employer m/s. b.h.e.l. and was notified on 19.12.1996. the employer filed a writ petition no. 41787 of 1998, bharat heavy electrical ltd; ranipur v. deputy labour commissioner and ors., before the allahabad high court which was dismissed by the court vide order dated 17.2.1999. the observations of allahabad high court in the said order are quoted below :'in the result, both the writ petition nos. 2109 of 1997 and 4187 of 1998 are found without any merit and substance and are accordingly dismissed. in case the petitioner deposits a sum of rs. 2,17,000/- (rs. two lacs and seventeen thousand) with the dy. labour commissioner, meerut region, meerut within a period of one month from the date of this order (i.e. today) no further action for initiating criminal proceedings in view of the provisions of section 14-a of the act shall be taken against it. if the amount, aforesaid is deposited, it shall be disbursed to the respondent workmen in terms of the award dated 5.7.1997. in the event of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, aforesaid, within the stipulated time, this order would not be an impediment in launching criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 14-a of the act. in the light of the observations made above, civil misc. writ petition no. 1654 of 1999 shall stand disposed of......

Full Judgment

Rajesh Tandon, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to initiate the prosecution against the officers of the B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Haridwar in pursuance of Section 14-A of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, on the basis of application dated 5.9.2003.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and other employees are working in the B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Haridwar. They have raised labour dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun being Industrial Case Nos. 31 of 1990 to 44 of 1990. The Labour Court has passed an award on 5.7.1996 in favour of the employees against the employer M/s. B.H.E.L. and was notified on 19.12.1996. The employer filed a Writ Petition No. 41787 of 1998, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd; Ranipur v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors., before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.2.1999. The observations of Allahabad High Court in the said order are quoted below :

'In the result, both the Writ Petition Nos. 2109 of 1997 and 4187 of 1998 are found without any merit and substance and are accordingly dismissed. In case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- (Rs. Two lacs and seventeen thousand) with the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut within a period of one month from the date of this order (i.e. today) no further action for initiating criminal proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act shall be taken against it. If the amount, aforesaid is deposited, it shall be disbursed to the respondent workmen in terms of the award dated 5.7.1997. In the event of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, aforesaid, within the stipulated time, this order would not be an impediment in launching criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 14-A of the Act. In the light of the observations made above, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1654 of 1999 shall stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.'

3. The petitioner has stated that his application-dated 5.9.2003 is still pending. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 and the same has not been disposed of.

4. Without entering into the merits of the controversy, the respondent is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after receiving certified copy of this order. The observations made above, shall not come in the way of the Labour Commissioner to dispose the application of the petitioner on merits.

5. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2003 Same Parties Vinod Kumar vs Assistant Labour Commissioner Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Rajesh Tandon, J. Acts & Sections Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 14A

Labour and Industrial