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

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 Dismisses Review Plea Against CBI Probe Into UP Assembly Staff Recruitment 'Irregularities'

Case title - Legislative Council Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy And 2 Others vs. Sushil Kumar And 11 Others along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a review plea filed by the UP Vidhan Parishad against an order of the HC passed last month directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary probe into the 'irregularities' in the recruitment of staff for the secretariat of the State Legislative Assembly and Council in 2022-23.

The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla that the prima facie, the alleged irregularities indicate that it was not less than a recruitment scam, wherein hundreds of recruits were illegally and unlawfully recruited by an external agency of shaken credence.

Hindu Marriage Not 'Solemnised' Unless 'Saptapadi' Ceremony (Saat Phere) Performed Between Parties: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23148 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361

The Allahabad High Court observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be 'solemnised' unless the 'Saptapadi' ceremony (taking of seven steps by the the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and other rituals have been performed.

With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a petition filed by one Smriti Singh challenging the entire proceedings of a complaint filed against her by her husband under Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 109 (Punishment of abetment) IPC.

National Informatics Centre Under Allahabad High Court's Radar For Discrepancy In Listing Of Cases

Case title - Sajjan Kumar vs. State of U.P

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 362

The Allahabad High Court has directed inquiry against officers of National Informatics Centre at the High Court, as repeated cases of listing of second bail applications by the same person before different bench has come to light.

Can't Make Hospital Dysfunctional For Single Incident Of Medical Negligence: Allahabad HC Stays License Suspension Of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi

Case Title - 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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 363

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court stayed the suspension of license of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi.

The bench comprising of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manish Kumar observed that because inquiry is pending in a single incidence of medical negligence, the entire hospital cannot be made dysfunctional.

“In the given circumstances, keeping a hospital disfunctional during pendency of an inquiry in case of single incidence of medical negligence also goes against the interest of the public at large. This is not a case where large number of patients were suffered and negligence had occurred repeatedly. Therefore, to balance the interest of public at large and also maintain fairness in inquiry, the impugned orders whereby the suspension is ordered bearing order No.3808 dated 18.09.2023 and order of suspension No.3813 dated 18.09.2023 are stayed.”