Allahabad High Court
Bhaguati Prasad Yadva vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Labour And 3 ... on 8 October, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Arvind Kumar (Ii)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 27
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 682 of 2006
Appellant :- Bhaguati Prasad Yadva
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thr. Secy Labour And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma, R.K.S. Suryavanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This special appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition where the petitioner-appellant had assailed the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in conciliation proceeding under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the Deputy Labour Commissioner refused conciliation. The writ petition has given rise to the present controversy challenging the order of Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petition was dismissed on 7.9.2005 recording findings that the petitioner-appellant was the employee of the contractor and not of the company.
In view of the law laid down in the case of Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (M/S.) and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur and another, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496 and the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2010 Allahabad 46 (FB), the special appeal would not be maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It will be useful to extract para 15 of the Full Bench Decision for an appreciation of conclusion drawn hereinabove as follows: -
"Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:
1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;
2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;
4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(ii) Court or
(iii) statutory arbitrator
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;
6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of
(i) the Government or
(ii) any officer or
(iii) authority,
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India."
The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.10.2014
Anupam
