IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a reference made by the State Government under the UPID Act to the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of a workman is valid, and the maintainability of a special appeal is determined by the specific circumstances outlined in the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This special appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules (for short ‘Rules’), is directed against order dated 11.12.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ – C No. 39505 of 2023, whereby the said writ petition along with 60 other connected writ petitions, filed by the appellant/petitioner-Company, aggrieved of the reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘UPID Act’), has been dismissed.

3. The office has reported the appeal as barred by 98 days.

4. An application, supported by affidavit, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed.

5. Though the affidavit, giving out reasons for condonation of delay, is very cursory and only formality sake, as the application is not contested by learned counsel for the respondents, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The office has also raised objection that the appeal appears to be not maintainable, in view of the Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents has also raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal and placed reliance on M/s Vajara Yojana Seed Farm, Kalyanpur and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur and another : (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised about the maintainability has no substance as the present case does not fall in any of the categories, wherein the special appeal has been held to be not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others : AIR 2010 ALL 46 (FB) and Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited Vs. Union of India and Anothers : (2001) 2 SCC 588.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on the aspect of maintainability of the special appeal. The provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, inter alia, read as under:

“5. Special Appeal: - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award – (a) of a tribunal, Court or 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, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.”

9. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Sheet Gupta (supra), wherein on account of conflict in two Division Bench Judgement of this Court including in Vajara Yojana Seed Farm (supra), relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, came to the following conclusion:

“18. Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea 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 i