Krishna Gopal Vs. Labour Court (iii) Kanpur and Others

Krishna Gopal vs Labour Court (iii) Kanpur and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 16, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/918183

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/918183
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Decided On: Nov 16, 2010
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 22866 of 1996
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

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

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Gopal

Advocate Arvind Kumar, Advs

Respondent

Labour Court (iii) Kanpur and Others

Advocate C.S.C. Adv

Excerpt

1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. this writ petition is directed against award dated 25.02.1995 given by presiding officer (iii), kanpur in adjudication case no.87 of 1989. the matter, which was referred to the labour court, was as to whether the action of the employer respondent no.2, m/s new victoria mills (unit of n.t.c.) u.p. limited of not promoting the petitioner, who was senior clerk in e.s.i. section as in-charge, e.s.i. section was just and valid or not. a similar reference had earlier been made in respect of another similarly situate employee ram raj yadav, respondent no.3. that case was registered as adjudication case no.40 of 1989 and was decided in favour of ram raj yadav on 29.04.1990 by the labour court directing the employer to give designation and pay-scale of in-charge e.s.i. section. in the award dated 25.02.1995 given in the matter of the petitioner, it was held that as post of in-charge, e.s.i. section had already been given to sri ram raj yadav pursuant to award dated 29.04.1990, hence same post could not be given to the petitioner. however, for the period from 09.02.1987 to 09.09.1988, petitioner was directed to be given the designation and pay-scale of in-charge, e.s.i. section. 3. when this writ petition was filed 14 years before, petitioner was 57 years of age as shown in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. accordingly, he must have retired long before. on 22.07.1996 when this petition was taken up as fresh, learned counsel prayed for its listing after ten days. thereafter no effort was made to get it heard at admission stage. today it has been listed for admission in normal course. writ petition has therefore become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 25.02.1995 given by Presiding Officer (III), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.87 of 1989. The matter, which was referred to the labour court, was as to whether the action of the employer respondent No.2, M/s New Victoria Mills (Unit of N.T.C.) U.P. Limited of not promoting the petitioner, who was senior clerk in E.S.I. Section as In-charge, E.S.I. Section was just and valid or not. A similar reference had earlier been made in respect of another similarly situate employee Ram Raj Yadav, respondent No.3. That case was registered as Adjudication Case No.40 of 1989 and was decided in favour of Ram Raj Yadav on 29.04.1990 by the labour court directing the employer to give designation and pay-scale of In-charge E.S.I. Section. In the award dated 25.02.1995 given in the matter of the petitioner, it was held that as post of In-charge, E.S.I. Section had already been given to Sri Ram Raj Yadav pursuant to award dated 29.04.1990, hence same post could not be given to the petitioner. However, for the period from 09.02.1987 to 09.09.1988, petitioner was directed to be given the designation and pay-scale of In-charge, E.S.I. Section.

3. When this writ petition was filed 14 years before, petitioner was 57 years of age as shown in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Accordingly, he must have retired long before. On 22.07.1996 when this petition was taken up as fresh, learned counsel prayed for its listing after ten days. Thereafter no effort was made to get it heard at admission stage. Today it has been listed for admission in normal course. Writ petition has therefore become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Krishna Gopal vs Labour Court (iii) Kanpur and Others Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.