AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Supplementary affidavit filed today be placed on record.
Mrs. Shraddha Agarwal, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the since the proceedings arise out of the provision of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, appeal would not lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not satisfy as to how the appeal is maintainable.
In view of the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2010 (28) LCD 1045 the Court in Para 14 of the report, has considered the orders against which special appeal would not lie. Para 14 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as under:
Having given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:
The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court;
the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;
the order made by one Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(ii) Court or
(iii) 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 List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;
the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of
(i) the Government or
(ii) any officer or
(iii) authority,
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
This apart, the order impugned only is an interlocutory order, which requires the Appellants to deposit half of the amount under recovery, subject to any order/decision which may be taken in the writ petition. The validity of the proceedings initiated against the Appellants is still under consideration and yet to be adjudicated upon and, therefore, if the learned Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction by requiring the Appellants to deposit half of the amount, it cannot be said that the discretion so exercised is palpably erroneous or not in accordance with sound judicial principles.
The plea of the Appellants that in case the said amount is deposited and distributed to the workers, it would not be easy for the Appellants to recover the same from them, in case of success in the writ petition, is also a mere apprehension for the reason that there is no order of the learned Single Judge to distribute the money amongst the workers but the only requirement is to deposit the money with the Regional Labour Commissioner and, therefore, also we do not find any reason to interfere in the special appeal.
Apart from the above, the impugned order does not decide any issue or controversy and, therefore, also it is not a case so as to be entertained in special appeal.
At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the time for depositing the amount is to lapse today and, therefore, further time be granted for compliance of the Court''s order.
Counsel for the Respondents have no objection.
We, therefore, allow one month''s further time to make the deposit. In case the amount is deposited within one month, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed, as per the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
Subject to above, the special appeal is dismissed.