Allahabad Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Badri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3194; [2002(95)FLR343]; (2003)1UPLBEC207
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. By judgment dated 2.5.2002, I allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award dated 25.1.1987. Certain provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act were not brought in my notice during the course of the argument on behalf of the parties. After pronouncement of the judgment, those provisions came to my notice. Hence notices were issued to the learned counsel for the parties to show cause as to why the order dated 2.5.2002 be not reviewed.2. Both learned counsel for the parties appeared before me and heard.3. Admitted facts are that opposite party worked as class IV employee between 3.2.1972 to 28.11.1974. O.P. No. 1 along with 28 other workmen were retrenched from service on 28.11.1974. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 1 was assured for re-employment in future. Out of them, 23 class IV employees junior to the opposite party and 4 senior to him were retrenched. According to opposite party No. 1, the Bank appointed a number of junior persons, b...
Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3172
A.K. Yog, J.1. Petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sharma, claims regularisation on the basis of his work for the following periods (as per his date and event chart along with the writ petition) admittedly, having been engaged as daily, wager in the department of Registration Government of U. P. :Petitioner was appointed for the period from11.4.1984 to 31.12.1984 (8-1/2 months)Gap 3 weeksPetitioner was appointed for the period from23.1,1985 to 31.1.1985 [10 days)Gap 9-1/2 monthsPetitioner was appointed for the period from16.4.1985 to 30.6.1985 (2-1/2 months)Gap 12 monthsPetitioner was appointed for the period from8.2.1986 to 3.5.1986 (2 months 27 days)The aforesaid statistics shows that petitioner had worked, in total for 15 months (ignoring short breaks, i.e. gap of less than 3 months).2. The learned standing counsel, however, giving his own calculation about the work of the petitioner and according to it, the petitioner had worked for 511 days (i.e. less than two years). Petitioner does not disp...
Kamta Prasad Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3259
Vineet Saran, J.1. A Suit No. 432 of 1972 was filed by one Jangi Lohar. (who is arrayed as respondent No. 3 in this writ petition) praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in the suit, which included the petitioner herein as defendant No. 6. The suit was contested by some of the defendants, including the brother of the petitioner but proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and was decreed by the trial court on 7.4.1978. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, a few of the defendants including the brother of the petitioner, filed Appeal No. 205 of 1972 which was partly allowed by the appellate court.2. Thereafter, in the year 1981, the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 65 of 1981 praying for cancellation of the decree passed in Original Suit No, 432 of 1972 as well as in the Appeal No. 205 of 1972. This suit was contested by the defendants who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 to 10 in this writ petition. On the pleadings of the parties, a pre...
Mohd. Islam Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3265; [2002(95)FLR533]
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer/Labour Court (U. P.) Agra, in Adjudication Case No. 259 of 1992 dated 14th June, 1996. The State Government vide its order dated 24th July, 1992, referred the following reference for adjudication before the labour court :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh eksgEen bLyke iq= Jh c'khj vgen] pijklh dh lsok;sa fnukad 9-3-1991 ls lekIrfd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed fdl fgrykHk@vuqrks'k@fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr **2. Before the labour court, both the parties have filed written statement, rejoinder-affidavit and adduced the evidence. The case set up by the workman is that he was employed with the employer with effect from September, 1984. His services were arbitrarily terminated on 9th March, 1991. This fact has been denied by the employer. The employer has stated that workman...
Raghubir Saran Gupta Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3145; (2003)1UPLBEC250
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an employee of U.P.S.R.T.C., Etah Region. Farrukhabad, has challenged the order dated 30th June. 1990, whereby the respondent-Corporation after holding regular disciplinary enquiry against the charge levelled against the petitioner passed an order of removal against the petitioner. The petitioner though had a remedy of filing an appeal against the order of removal but have approached this Court. This matter, which was filed in the year, 1990, came up for final hearing/disposal before me and the matter was heard on merits.3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation though tried to argue that since the petition is not admitted, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the service regulations. In my opinion, interest of justice would demand that the matter be decided on merits, particularly when the fact ...
Diwan Singh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3146
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. By means of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion on the post of Seasonal Naib Tahsildar. This promotion of the petitioner was till further orders. By means of Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the petitioner has not been granted further extension to work on the post of Naib Tahsildar and has been directed to work on his substantive post of Collection Amin. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 5.6.1995 and 7.6.1995 and further that he may be permitted to continue as Naib Tahsildar in Tahsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad. No interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 1995.2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been reverted on the post of Collection Amin without any opportunity. This contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived as he was not given any promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar after following the...
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3153
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2nd July, 1997 of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21698 of 1995, Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner appellant.3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are :'Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') claims ad hoc appointment as Lecturer, Geography in Gopi Ram Paliwal Inter College, Aligarh. One Sri S.P. Sharma who was working as Lecturer, Geography retired on 30th June, 1991, causing vacancyon the post of Lecturer, Geography. The management claims to have notified the aforesaid vacancy to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board. The management issued an advertisement dated 31.8.1991 in the newspape...
Chandra Shekhar Misra and anr. Vs. Sachiv, Nagar Vikas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3196; [2002(95)FLR345]
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioners allege that they were working in Jal Nigam, VIth Construction Division, Varanasi in 1989 as Pump Attendant and Hand Pump Mechanic. The petitioners were muster roll employees. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Chief Engineer I. U. P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, vide letter dated 26.5.1991 directed that services of those employees who have worked for less than 240 days, may be dispensed with. The petitioners having completed more than 240 days and having continuously worked for more than 5 years were illegally terminated by impugned orders dated 30.11.1994 and 26.11.1994, Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively.3. The impugned orders are being challenged on the ground that they have been issued by a Junior Engineer whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner was Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, respectively as such termination of their services ...
Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3236; [2002(95)FLR347]; (2003)1UPLBEC47
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent, is aggrieved by the order dated 18th November, 1986 and 24th January, 1992 and 20th February, 1993 whereby the State Government has not referred the dispute under the provisions of Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication before the labour court concerned. Against these orders, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17367 of 1993. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition by the judgment and order dated 10th May, 1993. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge the petitioner preferred a Special Appeal being special appeal No. 409 of 1993. This special appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside. In the aforesaid special appeal, this Court issued the following direction :'The contention of Dr. Padia is that since the State Government itself did not state the...
R.K. Tyagi, Adv. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3270; [2002(95)FLR315]; (2002)3UPLBEC2406
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shyam Narain. None appears for the respondents.2. By means of this petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the award of the labour court dated 2nd September, 1988, passed in Adjudication Case No. 195 of 1984. The workman who was working as Junior Engineer with the employer has raised an industrial dispute in which the employer has raised preliminary objection that U. P. Avas Vikas Parishad is not an 'industry' as defined in Section 2(k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that the workman Sri Tyagi was since working in supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per month is, therefore, not a workman as enshrined in Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The labour court vide its Impugned award has held that the workman Sri R. K. Tyagi is not a workman and, therefore, reference cannot be answered. It is this award which has been challenged by the workman concerned.4. Learned counse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »