Manoj Kumar Pandey v. Counsel for

1. Shri G. P. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank has filed a short counter affidavit, today, in Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to it. Therefore, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Prayagraj, dated 03.04.2024, passed in C. P. Case No.1 of 2024, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected holding it to be not maintainable in terms of Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that he was working as daily wage employee with the respondent Bank under the supervision and control of the respondent no.4 since 2014. As he was not paid salary continuously for the last three years, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, on which, C. P. Case No.1 of 2024 was registered. Since the aforesaid case was not being decided, he filed Writ-C No.14046 of 2024, seeking a direction commanding the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Prayagraj to decide C.P. Case No.1 of 2024. At the time of disposal of the aforesaid writ petition the counsel for the respondent Bank (respondent nos.3 to 6) produced a certified copy of the order dated 03.04.2024, in Court, and submitted that C.P. Case No.1/2024 has been dropped with a direction to 2 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 the petitioner to resort to remedy available before the competent authority. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 21.05.2024. Operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereinafter:- "4. Learned counsel for the Gramin Bank (respondent nos. 3 to 6) has produced a certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2024, today in court, which is taken on record. He has submitted, on the basis of order dated

3.4.2024, that C.P. No.1 of 2024 has been dropped with an advice to the petitioner to resort to the remedy available before the authority competent. In view of the certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2024, there is no pendency of the aforesaid case, as mentioned above, and there is no justification to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for.

5. As such, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is dismissed as infructuous."

4. It is thereafter that the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.04.2024, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The provisions of Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides jurisdiction to the Labour Court to decide the dispute between the workman and employer.

6. Learned counsel representing respondent Bank, on the other hand, contends that the respondent Bank is a Regional Rural Bank established by Government of India under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, as such, the appropriate government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be the Central Government and, therefore, the order of respondent no.2 is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court.

7. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent Bank has been established by the Government of India under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. The provisions of Section 2(l) of the U.P. 3 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines the meaning of 'industrial dispute', are extracted hereinafter:- "(l) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning — (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company; or (ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or (iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or (iv) a mine or an oil-field;"

8. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce the meaning of 'appropriate government' as defined under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:- "(a) “appropriate Government” means— (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company [or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Employees ’ State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central 4 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company], a mine, an oil- field] [a Cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and] [(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, 5 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment;]"

9. From a perusal of aforesaid provisions, the meaning of word 'appropriate government' as laid down in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the exception carved out under Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is evident that any dispute or difference between employer and workman in respect of banking and insurance companies is not contemplated under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but referable to an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The petitioner, admittedly, being a workman in the respondent Bank established by the Government of India, the appropriate government in relation to any industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be the Central Government. Therefore, the order of respondent no.2 holding the claim of petitioner to be not maintainable under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified and requires no interference.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Shri G. P. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank has filed a short counter affidavit, today, in Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to it. Therefore, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Prayagraj, dated 03.04.2024, passed in C. P. Case No.1 of 2024, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected holding it to be not maintainable in terms of Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that he was working as daily wage employee with the respondent Bank under the supervision and control of the respondent no.4 since 2014. As he was not paid salary continuously for the last three years, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, on which, C. P. Case No.1 of 2024 was registered. Since the aforesaid case was not being decided, he filed Writ-C No.14046 of 2024, seeking a direction commanding the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Prayagraj to decide C.P. Case No.1 of 2024. At the time of disposal of the aforesaid writ petition the counsel for the respondent Bank (respondent nos.3 to 6) produced a certified copy of the order dated 03.04.2024, in Court, and submitted that C.P. Case No.1/2024 has been dropped with a direction to 2 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 the petitioner to resort to remedy available before the competent authority. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 21.05.2024. Operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereinafter:- "4. Learned counsel for the Gramin Bank (respondent nos. 3 to 6) has produced a certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2024, today in court, which is taken on record. He has submitted, on the basis of order dated

3.4.2024, that C.P. No.1 of 2024 has been dropped with an advice to the petitioner to resort to the remedy available before the authority competent. In view of the certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2024, there is no pendency of the aforesaid case, as mentioned above, and there is no justification to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for.

5. As such, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is dismissed as infructuous."

4. It is thereafter that the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.04.2024, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The provisions of Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides jurisdiction to the Labour Court to decide the dispute between the workman and employer.

6. Learned counsel representing respondent Bank, on the other hand, contends that the respondent Bank is a Regional Rural Bank established by Government of India under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, as such, the appropriate government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be the Central Government and, therefore, the order of respondent no.2 is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court.

7. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent Bank has been established by the Government of India under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. The provisions of Section 2(l) of the U.P. 3 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines the meaning of 'industrial dispute', are extracted hereinafter:- "(l) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning — (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company; or (ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or (iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or (iv) a mine or an oil-field;"

8. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce the meaning of 'appropriate government' as defined under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:- "(a) “appropriate Government” means— (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company [or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Employees ’ State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central 4 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company], a mine, an oil- field] [a Cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and] [(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, 5 WRIC No. 22512 of 2024 the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment;]"

9. From a perusal of aforesaid provisions, the meaning of word 'appropriate government' as laid down in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the exception carved out under Section 2(l)(iii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is evident that any dispute or difference between employer and workman in respect of banking and insurance companies is not contemplated under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but referable to an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The petitioner, admittedly, being a workman in the respondent Bank established by the Government of India, the appropriate government in relation to any industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be the Central Government. Therefore, the order of respondent no.2 holding the claim of petitioner to be not maintainable under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified and requires no interference.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad