[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1819-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
17th March, 2026
Special Appeal No. 89 of 2024
Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan and others ------Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 152 of 2024
Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan and others ------Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 153 of 2024
Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan Kiccha and others
------Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents
And
Special Appeal No. 154 of 2024
Interarch Mazdoor Sangathan Kiccha and others
------Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.C.Pant and Mr. D.S.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners-
appellants.
Mr. B.S.Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent no. 1 to 4.
Mr. C.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
1
2026:UHC:1819-DB
JUDGMENT:
(per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. These appeals arise out of a common order
dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in
four writ petitions filed by individual workmen of
respondent no. 5-Interarch Building Products (Pvt.) Ltd.
(for short 'employer') and their Union challenging the
orders of dismissal of the workmen by the employer.
2. The case of the workmen before the Writ Court
was that the dismissal orders were in violation of a
settlement dated 15.12.2022 arrived at between the
employer, and the Union and its workmen, during course
of conciliation proceedings, and which was also made part
of an award rendered by National Lok Adalat on
11.02.2023.
3. Various other grounds were also taken by the
workmen for assailing the dismissal orders.
4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petitions holding that the workmen have alternative
remedy of challenging the dismissal orders for
enforcement of their rights under the settlement under
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been
held that the employer is a private limited company and
2026:UHC:1819-DB
is not receiving any financial aid from the State or Central
Government nor it is discharging any public function,
therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
5. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single
Judge, the present appeals have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the dismissal orders have been passed in violation of the
settlement arrived at between the workmen and the
employer and, in terms whereof, the Lok Adalat passed
an award on 11.02.2023. It is submitted that, in these
circumstances, the Writ Petitions have been wrongly
dismissed and the Writ Court should have examined the
plea taken by the workmen.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the employer submits that although he does not
dispute the fact that the parties entered into a settlement
during course of conciliation proceedings on 15.12.2022,
but the recital in paragraph 3 of the said settlement to
the effect that during course of the inquiry proceedings
and even thereafter, the services of the workmen would
not be dispensed with, was not there in the original
agreement. It is an interpretation made by hand after
the agreement was signed, although the remaining part
2026:UHC:1819-DB
of the agreement is computer typed. He further
submitted that the alleged settlement on which reliance is
being placed was not got registered in terms of Section
6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and,
therefore, it is not binding nor enforceable. He further
submitted that all other terms of the settlement have
already been honoured by the employer.
8. Rebutting the said submissions, learned
counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the
settlement dated 15.12.2022 is a genuine document and
there was no interpolation in the same. He submits that
since the same was accepted by the parties in the
proceedings before Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat has passed
an order dated 11.02.2023 making the settlement part of
the Award, therefore, it is binding on the employer, even
without the same being registered. In support of the
submission, he has placed reliance on Section 21 of the
Legal Services Authorities, 1987, and has contended that
as per Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act,
1987, every Award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to
be a decree of a civil court and would therefore be
binding and enforceable.
2026:UHC:1819-DB
9. Although by previous order, the original record
of the Lok Adalat was requisitioned and it has been
produced before us, we still feel that the issue as to
whether the recital in the settlement that, during inquiry
and even upon its conclusion, the services of the
workmen would not be terminated, is an interpolation or
not, does not arise for examination in the present
appeals, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the Writ Petitions solely on the ground that the
petitioners-appellants have alternative and efficacious
remedy under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
10. Even if, we accept the submission that the
settlement was a genuine one and the order passed by
the Lok Adalat amounts to an Award and does not require
any registration under the provisions U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, in case, the employer had violated
the conditions stipulated in the Award, it is open to the
workmen to execute the same as decree of a civil court in
view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act,
1987.
11. Thus, the ultimate conclusions arrived at by
learned Single Judge that the petitioners-appellants
(workmen) have other efficacious remedy available to
2026:UHC:1819-DB
them, and that the employer is neither 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 nor performing any public function
and therefore not amenable to writ-jurisdiction, are
found to be correct.
12. In view of the above, we find no good ground
to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge except for observing that the appellants-workmen
shall be at liberty to choose their remedy either before
the Civil Court or under the provisions of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
13. With the aforesaid clarification, the appeals are
dismissed.
14. We also clarify that we have not decided any
issue on merits and all the pleas and contention are
accordingly left open for being raised before appropriate
forum.
15. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 17.03.2026
Kaushal
