U P STATE SUGAR Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sunita agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Smt. Sunita Agarwal with regard to maintainability of the appeal. She submits that appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, rule 5 of the Rules of the Court since the order, which was challenged in the writ petition, was an order passed by Deputy Labour commissioner in proceedings under Section 6-H (1) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), who according to her would answer the description of a 'tribunal'.

(3.) THE contention so raised is misconceived. Under Section 6-H (1) of the Act the Deputy Labour Commissioner only computes the money due to a workman in terms of an Award or Settlement etc. and thereafter certificate is issued. Section 6-H (1) of the Act presupposes a settlement or award. Under section 6-H (1) of the Act the Deputy Labour commissioner does not act as a Court or tribunal so as to attract the bar under Chapter viii, Rule 5 of the Rules X of the Court. We are of the view that the appeal is not barred by chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.