Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2381
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Mishra holding brief of Sri Ashok Trivedi, the learned Counsel for the respondent workman.2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the workman with effect from the date when junior workers to the workman were engaged and further directed to pay wages from the said date.3. The Union on behalf of the workman espoused the cause by referring a dispute with regard to the validity of the termination of the workman w.e.f. 19.11.1977. This dispute was raised and referred after almost 10 years by an order of the State Government dated 12.1.1988. The petitioner in their written statement contended that the respondent was engaged on exigencies of service on daily rated basis and that he had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year nor the employer had dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2009All137
ORDERRajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia assailed the order dated 18th March, 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow inter alia on the ground that the impugned judgment not only suffers from infirmities but is in transgression of the authority vested in him inasmuch as the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code 2-5 were not adverted to and without adverting the same, the impugned order has been passed.3. Put it briefly, the essential facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on its business under the name and style of M/s. Citi Hotel, Lucknow, and for running the hotel the electrical energy was required and as such connection for supply of electrical energy was applied in the requisite format, which was sanctioned with a load of 40 KW. A meter was also installed in the premises of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2010)27VST351(All)
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Shri Piyush Agarwal and Shri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State.2. This revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1986-87 against the order passed by the Tribunal dated December 22, 2000.3. By this order, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessing authority for a limited purpose to ascertain as to what was the number of woollen goods/garments, which are to be taxed as an unclassified item. The question of law referred to is as hereunder:(i) Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the cases of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Super Wool House [1995] 96 STC 576 : [1995] UPTC 378 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Har Narain Moti Lal [1983] UPTC 181, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority ?(ii) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2113
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri A.A. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the payment of wages authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Even though, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, the writ petition was entertained since it involved a point of jurisdiction.3. It transpires that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are labourers employed in the agricultural field and were engaged in the tilling of the soil. It transpires that the respondents were not paid the minimum wages as notified by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was filed by the said respondents. The petitioner, who is a land owner, and a farmer, filed his written statement, objecting to the maintainability of the proceedings initiated under the Payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2394
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the non-promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Officer M.M.G.E.-II) the two petitioners have preferred this writ petition initially but it has been pressed before us only on behalf of petitioner No. 1 and therefore, is confined to him only.2. The petitioner No, 1-Anil Kumar was selected for the post of Officer in the Gorakhpur Chhetriya Bank in the year 1981 and after completion of training joined as Branch Manager on 3.1.1982. For promotion to the post of Officer M.M.G.E.-II, proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 1 in the year 1997. Though there are no statutory rules framed laying down procedure and criterion for promotion yet the Bank have issued executive orders providing that criterion for promotion would be 'seniority-cum-merit' and the officers having completed eight years of service would be eligible to be considered for such promotion. It also provides that the merit of the officer concerned shall be ascertained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(85)AWC2090
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1 to 4.2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are : petitioner's son S.K. Awasthi, advocate was charged with criminal contempt by a Division Bench of this Court being Criminal Contempt No. 19 of 2007. The Division Bench vide order dated 21st November, 2008 charged S.K. Awasthi with criminal contempt and directed the contemner to be taken into custody. The Division Bench to which the criminal contempt was assigned by judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007 punished the contemner with imprisonment for a period of one month. However, on the intervention of the members of the Bar that contemner would improve, the punishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2722
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The only point mooted in the present revision is whether the shop in dispute, i.e., the property No. 28/19, Kashmiri Bazar, Kotwali Ward, Agra of which the petitioner is a tenant @ Rs. 200 per month, is a 'new construction' within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and thus exempt from the operation of the said Act.2. It has been found by two courts below concurrently that the shop in dispute was a 'new construction' and therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the said shop.3. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi who has died during the pendency of the present writ petition, instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 88 of 1993, Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Pran Nath, on the allegations that the disputed shop being a new construction is exempt from the operation of the provisions of said Act and the tenancy has been determined by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3115
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P., against the judgment dated 10.1.2001 of the Hon'ble single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48654 of 2000, wherein his lordship has taken a general view on the question as to whether application for extension of time bound interim orders is necessary or whether it must be heard by the same Judge or it could be heard by another Judge, who is seized of the jurisdiction as a result of rotation of Bench and has held that no order is required to be passed as time bound interim order. If case is not taken up and if the petitioner applies for question answer from the office to find out whether his application was pending and interim order was continuing even after expiry of time mentioned in the order, the answer be given by the office in the affirmative.2. Having heard learned standing counsel we are of the view that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable in law.3. In Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. ...
Tag this Judgment!