Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-07-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1661
S.U. Khan, J.1. Inspite of sufficient service, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party at the time of hearing, hence, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicants were heard in both the revisions.2. Revisions are withdrawn/ treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24, C.P.C.3. First revision is directed against order dated 30.9.1986, passed by Civil Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 128/70 of 1983. The said case had been instituted by Parasnath Ji Trust, opposite party under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitration Act, 1940 has been repealed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, by virtue of Sections 21 and 85 of new Act, proceedings which had commenced before passing of the new Act will have to be completed in accordance with Arbitration Act, 1940 vide T. Esthal Union G.M.B.H. v. Steel Authority of India : AIR1999SC3923 and Neeraj Munjal v. Atul Grover : AIR2005SC2867 .4. The case of the opposite party before the court below was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-25-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3382
Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by U.P. Public Serviee Tribunal, the petitioner has come for in this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order only to the extent it denies back wages from 22.7.1996 to 4.9.2003.2. The fact giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Lekhpal. He was placed under suspension on 14.6.1995 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. A charge-sheet was issued on 28.8.1995 which was replied by him on 18.9.1995. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.12.1995. which was communicated to the petitioner. He submitted reply and, thereafter, the Sub-divisional Magistrate issued a show-cause notice on 15.12.1995 as to why he may be not dismissed. The petitioner replied on 2.1.1996. However, he was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.1996, whereagainst he filed writ petition No. 32357 of 1996, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-29-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1354
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Petitioner appeared in Subordinate Agricultural Service Examination held under the Directorate of Agriculture, U.P. in the year 1968, and stood first in Lucknow Region and was placed at sixth position in the State of U.P. He was finally selected and thereafter in pursuance of letter of Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration) dated 17.11.1971, petitioner was allocated under the District Agriculture Officer, Raebareli, and. communication qua the same was sent on 30.11.1971 by Deputy Director of agriculture, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, asking the petitioner to report and join under the District Agriculture Officer, Raebareli, within seven days of the receipt of the letter, failing which appointment order would be treated as cancelled. Relevant extract of the said order dated 30.11.1971 is being quoted below:In pursuance of Joint Director of Agriculture (Admn.) U.P.'s letter No. AC-3224-26/3 Appt. 70 dt. 17.11.1971 Sri Hausila Pandey is hereby allotted under the Distt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-07-2007
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR736]; (2008)ILLJ1089All
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Km. Sunita Rani Gupta and Shri V.R. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Ratan and Shri Piyush Bhargava for the respondents.2. The 'Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union Sathariya, Jaunpur has filed this writ petition through its President Shri Kamaiapati Tripathi for quashing the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur on a representation made by 'Hawkins Cookers Limited'-respondent No. 4 (the management) to set aside the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaunpur. By an amendment allowed by this Court on 16.12.2005, the petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi.3. The petitioner is a registered Union of the workmen affiliated with 'Centre of Indian Trade Union' (CITU), a Central Federation of Trade Unions. The Union submitted a demand letter dated 3.2.2...
Tag this Judgment!