http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3539 of 2006

PETITIONER: Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,Achanera & Anr

RESPONDENT: Vinod Kumar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Allahabad 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 referred to in detail.  In  a nutshell the position is as follows:               Respondent aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court  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:

"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?"   

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 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.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

5.      In the aforesaid background, we set aside the impugned  order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh  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.        

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.