Ram Awtar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised objection against the report of the Taxing Officer that separate Court-fees has to be paid by each of the petitioners as the matter has to be decided in relation to the regularisation of each of the petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case this issue has already been decided that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation. Now the only common issue raised on behalf of the petitioners has to be decided whether they are entitled for regularisation, w.e.f., the date of reference as in identical matter it was decided or from the date of award as decided by the impugned award. Since common issue has to be decided as such if the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners is maintainable then only one Court-fees is liable to be paid in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saroja Nand Jha and others v. M/s. Hari Fertilizers, Varanasi and others 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228, and Full Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Others Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Another, .

Learned Standing Counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is separate cause of action and claim of each of the petitioners is regarding the regularisation and as such separate Court-fees have to paid and rightly the report was made by the Taxing Officer and as such the petitioners have to pay separate Court-fees.

Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties. In the case of Saroja Nand Jha (supra), the petitioners were 14 in numbers, they were residing in the Quarters in Industrial Housing Colony and consequent to the closure of the factory and without notice, the complaint was filed u/s 6(13) of the Indian Companies Act. The writ petitions were filed against the complaints by the petitioners and in that case, it was decided by the Division Bench of this Court that the petitioners can maintain one writ petition on the payment of one set of Court-fees as there was a joint interest in the cause of action.

In the present case, the award has already been passed by the labour Court, however, due to inadvertent mistake when the award was passed on 25.8.2009 for regularisation of the petitioners, it was not mentioned with effect from which date, they have to be regularised and as such the application has been moved for correction and modification of the order u/s 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award was corrected and modified and the direction was issued that the regularisation would be with effect from the date of award. Now it has not to be decided separately whether each of the petitioners is entitled for regularisation or not. The only common issue is that whether they are entitled with effect from the date of award or with effect from the date of reference, hence, one writ petition is maintainable on payment of one set of Court-fees. Accordingly, the objection of Taxing Officer dated 11.9.2013 is hereby quashed.