A KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, ACHANERA AND ANR. v VINOD KUMAR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
S. H. Kapadia
Judgment Date: 2008-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order of the Allahabad High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication. The appeal is disposed of with no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Achanera and Anr.

Respondents

Vinod Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Pradeep Misra

Counsels for Respondents

• Gaurav Jain
• Abha Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns a writ petition under Article 226 filed by Vinod Kumar challenging a Labour Court award relating to termination of his services. The Labour Court had held that Subzi Mandi was not an industry and that the workman had been engaged on an ad hoc basis for 89 days. The Allahabad High Court first took up the matter for hearing on 27 August 2003, and, on that day, reserved its judgment. The final judgment was delivered on 19 December 2003 but was not listed, and the parties were unaware of the delivery, as evidenced by counter affidavits filed in January 2004 and rejoinders in April 2004. The High Court subsequently allowed the writ petition, thereby upsetting the Labour Court’s award. The appellants argued that the judgment, delivered without proper notice and despite not being listed, was reserved on the first day itself, rendering the High Court’s order procedurally defective. The respondent-workman did not dispute this procedural contention. The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural irregularity and held that the purported delivery of the judgment on 19 December 2003, not reflected in the list, violated due process. It set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication, directing consideration of affidavits already filed and any further documents, with the Chief Justice fixing a bench. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the High Court reserved judgment on 27 August 2003 and delivered it on 19 December 2003 without issuing any notice and without the judgment being listed. This procedural defect vitiates the order, as due process was not observed. They argued that the impugned High Court order setting aside the Labour Court award should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, with guidance to consider the documents already on record and any further evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel did not dispute the asserted procedural irregularity—the judgment being reserved and delivered without notice. The text does not provide detailed opposing submissions on the merits in this excerpt; the respondent’s position appears not to contest the asserted due-process flaw, and the High Court’s order allowing the writ petition (thereby setting aside the Labour Court award) is treated as the position under challenge.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

,4-- ~ ' I- \ ## [2008] 2 S.C.R. 232 A KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, ACHANERA AND ANR. ## _v._ ## VINOD KUMAR (Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 2006) B JANUARY 30, 2008 [DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] -; - - - _Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 226 Labour dispute_ - _Award of Labour Court- Writ petition against, by workman_ c _[High Court reserved judgment, the very first day the matter ] was listed before it, and_ 3~ _months later delivered judgment_ - _allowing the writ petition Held: Without issuance of notice, pn the first day itself the judgment was reserved and the award_ - _of Labour Court set aside Hence, matter remitted to High[Practice and Procedure. ]_ D _[Court for fresh adjudication ]_[-] Respondent-workman filed writ petition challenging the award passed by Labour Court. The matter was listed before the High Court for the first time on 27-8-2003 and on that date itself the judgment was reserved by High E[Court. The ][judgment ][was ultimately delivered on 19-12-] 2003 whereby the writ petition filed by Respondentworkman was allowed. Hence the present appeal. )lo-. -f Remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: Though the judgment was purportedly F delivered on 19-12-2003, same was not in the list. The parties were not aware of the judgment delivered which is evident from the fact that the counter affidavit was filed by the appellant on 16-01-2004 and the rejoinder by the respondent was filed on 29-04-2004. It is, therefore, G submitted by the Appellant that without issuance of the notice, on the first day itself the judgment was reserved and the award of the Labour Court was set aside. This position is not disputed by the Respondent. In the aforesaid background, the impugned order of the High H 232 H _?--._ _'r_[,, ] ., + KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT!, ACHANERA & ANR. 233 I -. t~ # _v._ VINOD KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] ----+- Court is set aside and the matter remitted to it for fresh A adjudication. [Paras 4, 5] [234-A, B, C] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 2006. ;-.... > From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 and B 27.8.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 37181/2003 and C.M. (Recall) Application No. 113220 of 2004 in C.M.W.P. No. 37181/2003 respectively. Pradeep Misra for the Appellants. c Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad D High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and dismissing the review petition filed by the present appellant. 2. The factual scenario need not be refe·rred to in detail. In a nutshell the position is as follows: Respondent aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court[E ] dated 20.2.2003 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). The dispute which was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication read as follows: ...l ..... F "Whether termination of services by the employers of their workman Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Shiv Charan Lal, Mandi Assistant w.e.f. 10.01.1998 is legal and/or valid? If not, then to what relief or benefit the workman is entitled to get?" G 3. The Labour Court after issuance of the notice to the parties held that the Subzi Mandi was not an industry and further the workman had been appointed for 89 days on ad hoc basis. The said award was challenged before the High Court. The matter was listed on 27.8.2003 for the first time and on that . ', H ,~- [2008] 2 S.C.R. ## 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ~~ A date the judgment was reserved and delivered on 19.12.2003. 4. According to learned counsel for the appellants the notice was given on 23.8.2003 and the matter was listed on 27.8.2003. Though the judgment was purportedly delivered on 19.12.2003, same was not in the list. The parties were not aware of the judgment delivered which is evident from the fact that the counter affidavit was filed by the present appellant on 16.1.2004 and the rejoinder by the present respondent was filed on 29.4.2004. It is, therefore, submitted that without issuance of the notice, on the first day itself the judgment was reserved and the award of the Labour Court was set aside. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. B c 5. In the aforesaid background, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh D[adjudication. ][To ][avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear ] before the High Court before the appropriate Bench on 14th March, 2008 without further notice. Since the counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed, they are to be taken into consideration and if any other further documents are to be filed, the same shall be done by the 7th March, 2008. E ~ _('_ .~~ 6. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to fix an appropriate Bench for hearing of the matter. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. B.B.B. F Appeal disposed of. '[J.. ] ..,...