CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 01 AHC CK 0062

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 28 January 2009 · Citation: (2009) 2 AWC 1457(1) : (2009) 121 FLR 652 : (2009) 4 LLJ 219 : (2009) 1 UPLBEC 909

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Agarwala, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 350 words

Tarun Agarwala, J.—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 u/s 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 the award is a nullity since the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim or issue an award, and therefore, the award can be set aside at any stage.

5.

In my opinion, the mere fact that a recent decision has been given by the Supreme Court will not annul an award passed by the Tribunal earlier. Further, the petitioner has not given any explanation with regard to the delay in approaching the writ court. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the impugned award at this belated stage. The writ petition challenging the award stands dismissed on the ground of laches.

6.

In so far as the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner is concerned, it only computes the wages in terms of the award u/s 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. No specific error has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the said impugned order.

7.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily.