Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 2 - October 8, 2023

NOMINAL INDEX U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited through its Managing Director and Another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U. P. Lucknow and two others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 356 Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 357 Union Of India And 4 Others v. Ashutosh Kumar And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 358 Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359 Legislative Council Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy And 2 Others vs. Sushil Kumar And 11 Others along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360 Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361 Sajjan Kumar vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 362 Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi Thru. Chief Operation Officer, Shri Avadhesh Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health, U.P. Lucknow And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 363 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS UP Cooperative Societies Act And Not Industrial Disputes Act Applies To Disputes Between Employer-Employee In Cooperative Society: Allahabad HC Case Title: U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited through its Managing Director and Another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U. P. Lucknow and two others [Writ C No.1006454 of 2011] Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 356 The Allahabad High Court has held that any dispute between an employer and employees of a cooperative society are to be adjudicated under the U.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and not the under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others and the division bench of the High Court in Ramji Lal Tewari Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Federation Ltd. Lko, bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held “it is clear that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said matter pertaining to a Society constituted under the Act, 1965.” Article 311(2) | Conviction Doesn't Lead To Automatic Dismissal From Govt Service, Application Of Mind Must: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And O [WRIT - A No. - 4422 of 2015] Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 357 The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that for dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the authority must look at the conduct which led to conviction on a criminal charge. Mechanical order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India cannot be passed based on mere conviction, it held. “Now this issue is no res integra. Apex Court from the judgement of Tulsiram Patel(Supra) to many other judgments has considered this issue repeatedly and has held that even after conviction of an employee, while passing the removal or dismissal order, there must have been consideration of conduct of the employee and without that, any order of dismissal is bad,” held Justice Neeraj Tiwari. Railways Responsible For Actions Of Its Departments: Allahabad High Court Upholds CAT Order Granting Notional Promotion To Employees From 2018 Case Title: Union Of India And 4 Others v. Ashutosh Kumar And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15197 of 2023] Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 358 The Allahabad High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting notional promotion to employees of railways from the date of their application on the ground that delay caused by one arm and arbitrary action of other arm of the Railways cannot take away the benefits accruing to the employees. A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV held, “Seen, thus both ICF and CMLRW are two arms of the same department of the Union of India. Delay caused by one and arbitrary action taken by another may not be relied any benefit accruing to the respondents. Ultimately, it is the department of the Railways, under the Union of India that remains primarily responsible and liable for the mistake committed either by ICF or CMLRW or both.” SC/ST Act Offences | Can Entire Case Proceedings Be Challenged In Plea U/S 482 CrPC? : Allahabad HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359 Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359 The Allahabad High Court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether an application, filed under Section 482 of CrPC, challenging entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act, is maintainable. A bench of Justice JJ Munir referred the issue in question as it noted that there were conflicting judgments of the High Court regarding the maintainability of such an application moved under Section 482 CrPC. ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 2 - October 8, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags