Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1097 (ALL)

JEET LAL v. THE LABOUR COURT-V AND ANR.

2003-05-07

ANJANI KUMAR

body2003
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 7th May, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Jeet Lal, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india has challenged the order of the Labour Court-V, U,p. , Kanpur dated 31st October, 1984, passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1984, whereby application purporting to an application under section 33-C (2) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter shall be referred to as the act, filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition. The petitioners case, as set up by him before the labour Court as well as in the writ petition, is that he was working with the UP. State Agro industrial Cooperation Limited, Ashok Nagar, Etawah, the employer, since 1975 as tractor operator, but he was being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 165-215, which is applicable to the salary of helper tractor operator. The petitioner-workman has further set up that he should be granted regular pay scale and also he had asked for the payment of Rs. 24,000/- according to his own calculation. ( 3 ) THE Labour Court after hearing both the parties at length has held that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the aforesaid Act is not maintainable and therefore, rejected the same vide its order dated 31st October, 1984, thus, this writ petition. The Labour court has framed the preliminary issue and decided the same against the petitioner relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 1604 ; AIR 1964 SC 743 and 1982 (44) FLR 117 . ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any distinction as to why the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the aforesaid cases will not apply to the facts of the present case. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any distinction as to why the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the aforesaid cases will not apply to the facts of the present case. I have gone through the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the Labour Court and in my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error, much less manifest error of law, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the order impugned in the present writ petition. ( 5 ) THIS writ petition, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. .