Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1649
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri V.K. Nagaich, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant appellant, the State of U.P., through District Magistrate, Meerut and Sri P. K. Jain, learned senior counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of one year and 174 days in filing this second appeal. This application is supported with an affidavit. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.3. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005/10.11.2005, passed by the first appellate court was obtained by the appellant on 28.11.2005 and on 3.12.2005, the District Government Counsel alongwith his opinion sent the same to the authority. On 27.12.2005, the departmental official sent a letter to the Conservator of Forest for o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1060
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Surendra Singh and Zulfikar, the petitioners, by means of a registered sale deed dated 16th of August, 2003 purchased 0,151 hectares in Khasra No. 113 of village Ismailpur, Boodhpur, tehsil Chandpur, District Bijnore for an amount of Rs. 53,000/- and paid the stamp duty as applicable to agricultural land situate near the road.2. They after one year demarcated their land from the land of other farmers in khasra No. 113 by laying a pucca foundation using bricks around three sides of this land. After a long time, the Deputy Registrar, Chandpur, District Bijnor made a spot inspection of the land in question and recommended for initiation of proceedings as the instrument, i.e., the sale deed according to him was deficiently stamped. On the basis of the said spot inspection report, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) referred the matter to the Collector (Stamp), Bijnore, under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act. It was registered as Case No. 324 of 2004-2005. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1066
R.K. Agrawal and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 25th December, 2008, passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia and the order dated 15th January, 2009, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rasra, district Ballia copies whereof have been filed as Annexures 8 and 9 respectively to the writ petition.2. It appears that a fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Chikahar. Block Chikahar, tehsil Rasra, District Ballia was allotted to the petitioner on 4th November, 2008. Further, it appears that respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60798 of 2008, before this Court, inter alia, contending that the allotment of the fair price shop agency in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Government orders dated 10th September, 1999 and dated 17th August, 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1705
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. The petitioners before this Court claim to be the recorded tenure holders of plot bearing Khata Nos. 156 and 38. It is stated that the land covered by the aforesaid khata number, was subject-matter of acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as per the Notification dated 28.5.1989 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner accepted the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and did not make any reference in that regard under Section 18 of the Act. It is further stated that other tenure holders whose land was also acquired under the same Notification, made a reference qua rate of payment of compensation. The matter was adjudicated under an award dated 16th August, 1999 passed in L.A.R. No. 42 of 1993 the rate of compensation for the land so acquired has been enhanced.2. On the aforesaid award being made, the petitioner made an application under Section 28...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1711
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is functioning as an officiating Principal in Shri Raghubir Sahai Jauhari Adarsh Vidyapeeth Kanya Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhoor, Bareilly since 1st of July, 1991. The writ petition gives various details of a series of litigation between the petitioner and the management and between the petitioner and respondent No. 6, which, the Court is not concerned with. Suffice it to say, in a nutshell, the petitioner, the management of the institution and the respondent No. 6 are at logger heads and do not see eye to eye and, this is the main cause which has resulted in the filing of the present writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 29th November, 2008 resolved to suspend the petitioner by exercising the powers under Section 16G (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The requisite papers for necessary approval or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(85)AWC1851; (2009)IIILLJ389All
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The workman filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of wages for the period 11.9.2005 to 5.1.2006 and also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000 which he had deposited as security at the time of his engagement as a weighment clerk. The labour court in its order has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,361 towards arrears of wages alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable since there was no previous adjudication of the benefit which the workman had claimed. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in D. Krishnan and Anr. v. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 22.4. In my opinion, the submiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1457(1); (2009)IVLLJ219All
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is challenging the award dated 28th February, 2002, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur as well as the recovery order dated 1.9.2008, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.3. The ground of attack is that the petitioner is a co-operative society and that no industrial dispute can be referred under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and Ors. JT 2007 (2) SC 966 : 2007 (2) AWC 1974 (SC).4. This Court finds that the award of the Tribunal is of the year 2002, which has been challenged after almost 7 years in the present writ petition filed on 12th of January, 2009. No explanation whatsoever has been given with regard to the delay in approaching the Court belatedly. The only ground urged is, that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1486
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated April 20, 1976, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 herein. The dispute relates to Khata Khatauni Nos. 46, 47 and 79 situate in village Chakhaniya, Pergana Narwan, district Varanasi. Khata Nos. 46 and 47 were recorded in the basic year as bhumidhar of Shyam Behari, respondent No. 5 (contesting respondent). While Shyam Behari was recorded as sirdar with respect to Khata No. 79. The petitioner preferred an objection before the Consolidation Authorities during the consolidation operation for recording her name in the revenue records as co-tenure holder alongwith Shyam Behari. The objections were filed on the pleas inter alia that Namwar Singh, Raja Singh and Nawab Singh, three brothers, sons of Shiv Saran Singh, were tenure holders of the land in dispute. Namwar Singh died about 60 years ago and his share was inherited in absence of any other heir by his remaining brothers Raja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1589
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri H. K. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the caveator.2. The services of the workman, respondent No. 1 was terminated on a variety of charges. The workman raised a reference. The labour court gave an award directing reinstatement with 50% of back wages. The employer, namely, the petitioners, filed Writ Petition No. 24502 of 2007 which was allowed by a judgment dated 23.5.07 and the award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the labour court to reconsider the matter. The Court observed that when the labour court had recorded the finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated, in that event, the labour court ought to have granted an opportunity to the employer to prove the charges and, on this basis, the matter was remitted to the labour court.3. The labour court, after giving an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence, has again given an award directing reinstatement with 50% of back ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ252All
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.2. The union filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act alleging that the employers who are running a Cinema Hall were showing four shows in a day and that as per the award, an allowance of Rs. 2 per day was required to be given by the employer who were running four shows per day. Since this amount was not paid, an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the period January 1, 1975 to January 31, 1978 was filed. The Union also prayed for payment of compensation amounting to 10 times for wrongful deduction.. The prescribed authority, after considering the evidence, and the reply of the employers, passed an order dated March 20, 1979 holding that the workers were entitled to the wrongful deductions. The Prescribed Authority also imposed...
Tag this Judgment!