Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shyam Karan Anand vs Deputy General Manager State Bank Of ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17830 ALL

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17830 ALL
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Shyam Karan Anand vs Deputy General Manager State Bank Of ... on 17 May, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89928-DB
 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 417 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Shyam Karan Anand
 
Respondent :- Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India Appellate Authority And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Kumar,Janardan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Kumar Chaturvedi, Pankaj Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 5540 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the award dated 27.05.2015 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents with reference to judgment in Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (M/s.) and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur and another, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 496 made submissions that the appeal is not maintainable.

3. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vajara Yojna Seed Farm (supra), inter alia, laid down

?51. The submission of Sri P.S. Baghel appearing for the respondents in Special Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 is fully supported by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case had occasion to consider as to whether special appeal is maintainable against a judgment of learned Single Judge passed in writ petition arising out of award by Central Industrial Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court while considering Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court laid down in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment as under :-

"4. ................................................?

On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that if the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or 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 Lists or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution or of the Government or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, then no appeal shall lie against the judgment of the Single Judge. If on the other hand, the judgment of the Single Judge is rendered with respect to any matter enumerated in the Union List, then an appeal may be filed against the judgment.

5. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal in the present case can be said to be with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or it is in respect of a matter under the Union List. Indisputably, the reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal was made by the Central Government (appropriate Government) under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Tribunal passed the award in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under the said Act. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with matters relating to Trade Unions, Industrial and Labour Disputes; provided in Entry 22 of List III Concurrent List."

52. From the above discussion, it is clear that special appeal filed against the award by Labour Court is not maintainable and the Special Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2001. 416 of 2002 and 541 of 2002 are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.?

In view of the determination made, the appeal is not maintainable, the same is pressed as not maintainable. The same has been dismissed as not maintainable.

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

P.Sri./Rajesh

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter