{"id":80567,"date":"2010-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-01T18:54:39","modified_gmt":"2018-12-01T13:24:39","slug":"naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 28\n\nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 1101 of 2005\n\nPetitioner :- Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union Naini Alld.Thru'President\nRespondent :- State Of U.P.&amp; Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- H.P. Pandey\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Bajpai,Ashish Chaturvedi,Ashish\nChitranshi,Dr. V.K. Rai,H.R. Mishra,K.M. Mishra,Sankatha Rai,Shashi\nNandan,V.K. Rai\n\nHon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Heard Sri H.N.Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner , learned<br \/>\nstanding counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 5, Sri Anil Bajpayee for<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 and Sri T.P.Singh Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri<br \/>\nSiddharth learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>The relevant facts of the case are that Naini Glass Works Private Limited<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 is a company registered under the &#8216;Companies Act&#8217;<br \/>\nhaving its factory and head office at 92 Chak Ataullah Naini, Allahabad.<br \/>\nDue to shortage of coal which is the primary requirement for functioning<br \/>\nthe furnaces meant for melting the glasses and other factors, it became<br \/>\nimpossible for the company to run the glass factory. As consequence in<br \/>\nMarch 1978 the company was left with no option but to close down the<br \/>\nfurnaces and stop manufacturing process in the company with effect<br \/>\nfrom 25th March 1978 and lay off the workmen<\/p>\n<p>on account of non supply of coal. Accordingly a notice of lay off was<br \/>\ngiven to the workmen on 24.3.1978 . The lay off continued from time to<br \/>\ntime by further notices. However, eventually the application moved on<br \/>\nbehalf of respondent no.4 for permission to lay off for the period<br \/>\n24.3.1978 to 7.5.1978 was rejected illegally by the labour commissioner.<br \/>\nUpon receiving the order of the labour commissioner dated 7.5.1978 the<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 again moved an application on 9.5.1978 for permission<br \/>\nof lay off in the prescribed format for the subsequent periods 8.5.1978,<br \/>\n8.7.1978, 8.7.1978 10.9.1978 to 30.11.1978 on 8.5.1978, 5.7.78 and<br \/>\n17.11.1978. The said applications remained pending before the Deputy<br \/>\nLabour Commissioner but when the respondent no.4 failed to arrange<br \/>\nfinance for re-opening the factory, the respondent no.4 gave notice on<br \/>\n 5.10.1977 for closure of the factory. Thereafter the Deputy labour<br \/>\ncommissioner issued letters to the respondent no.4 on 27.10.1977<br \/>\npurporting to be under Section 4 of the U.P. Industrial Peace and timely<br \/>\npayment of Wages Act 1978, (U.P. Act No.5 of 1974), requiring the<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 to produce the records pertaining to the wages to the<br \/>\nworkmen, upon receiving the said notice the respondent no.4 produced<br \/>\nthe record pertaining to the wages of the workmen and filed statements<br \/>\nshowing the amount payable as wages and lay off compensation. The<br \/>\ndeputy labour commissioner thereafter issued a recovery certificate to<br \/>\nthe collector\/ District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 3 of the<br \/>\nU.P .Act No.5 of 1978 requiring him to recover a sum of Rs.4,80,000\/ as<br \/>\narrears of wages payable to workmen employed in the establishment of<br \/>\nrespondent no.4. The respondent no.4 challenged the said recovery<br \/>\ncertificate before this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.504\/1978 and<br \/>\nobtained an interim order. It appears that the said writ petition was<br \/>\ndismissed in default on 6.5.2003. Where -after Naini Glass Works<br \/>\nMajdoor Union Naini, Allahabad filed the instant writ petition before<br \/>\nthis Court for following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandaums directing the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate Allahabad to recover the outstanding dues Rs.5,28,000\/ as<br \/>\nLand Revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the<br \/>\nDeputy Labour Commissioner Allahabad to issue a fresh recovery certificate<br \/>\nfor realising of the outstanding dues.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate, Allahabad to ensure that the possession of the Factory site<br \/>\nsituated plot no. 80 and 81 village Chak Lal Mohammad may not be handed<br \/>\nover to any one till the clearance of the employees outstanding dues and other<br \/>\nconsequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon&#8217;ble Court may deem fit<br \/>\nand proper in the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. award the cost of thee writ petition to the petitioner &#8221;<br \/>\nIn the said writ petition following interim order was passed<\/p>\n<p>by this Court on 11.5.2005<br \/>\n &#8221; Hon.Arun Tandon J.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the record it is apparent that an order was passed by the Deputy<br \/>\nLabour Commissioner, Alahabad(respondent no.3) dated 6th November<br \/>\n1978(Annexure 3 to the writ petition) requesting the District Magistrate<br \/>\nAllahabad (respondent no.2) to recover a sum of Rs.4,80,000\/ under the<br \/>\nprovisions of U.P.Act No.5 of 1978 as arrears of land revenue. The said<br \/>\norder was challenged by M\/s Naini Glass Works Proctor Ltd, Naini,<br \/>\nAllahabad by means of the writ petition no.504 of 1979. The writ petition<br \/>\nwas dismissed under order of this Court dated 6th may 2003. On<br \/>\ndismissal of the said writ petition the petitioner again approached the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate to enforce the recovery in terms of the recovery<br \/>\ncertificate issued by the Deputy labour Commissioner dated 6th<br \/>\nNovember 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is surprising till date the District Magistrate , Allahabad has not taken<br \/>\nany step for enforcing the said recovery against the employers.<br \/>\nList on 19th May 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned standing counsel is directed to to file an affidavit of the District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Allahabad or some other responsible officers of the State of<br \/>\nU.P. categorically disclosing as to why the recovery in pursuance of the<br \/>\nrecovery certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated<br \/>\n6th November 1978, has not been enforced till date.<br \/>\nA copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned standing counsel by<br \/>\ntomorrow i.e. 12.5.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.5.2005&#8243;\n<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to the aforesaid order plot nos. 80-81 situated in Chak Ata<br \/>\nUllah, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad, ( hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;disputed plots&#8217;), were put to auction sale. However,<br \/>\nbefore the auction could take place an application was moved on behalf<br \/>\nof Sahyog Sahkari Samiti and its Secretary yadunath for being<br \/>\nimpleaded as respondent nos. 6 and 7 in the writ petition on the ground<br \/>\nthat they were bonafide purchasers of the disputed plots in redemption of<br \/>\nmortgage created by directors of respondent no.4 who were the owners of<br \/>\nthe disputed plots in favour of the State Bank of India, for securing loan<br \/>\nobtained by the respondent no.4 company. The said application was<br \/>\nallowed. The Society and its Secretary Yadunath were impleaded as as<br \/>\n respondent nos. 6 and 7 and thereafter on a statement of counsel for the<br \/>\nnewly impleaded respondent nos. 6 and 7 before this Court an order<br \/>\ndated 10.11.2005 staying the auction sale of the disputed plots which was<br \/>\nscheduled to take place on 14.11.2005 was passed subject to the<br \/>\nrespondents no.6 and 7 depositing the entire amount due to the<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 the petitioner of writ petition No.11101\/2005 within a<br \/>\nweek.\n<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to the aforesaid order the respondent no.6 deposited the sum of<br \/>\nRs.5 lacs with the District Magistrate\/Collector Allahabad. The<br \/>\nrespondent nos. 6 and 7 allege that the respondent no.4 company was<br \/>\nnever the owner of plot nos 80 and 81. and the said plots belonged to the<br \/>\ndirectors of the company, who had jointly mortgaged the disputed plots<br \/>\nwith the State Bank of India as security for the repayment of the loan<br \/>\nobtained by the Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>The aforesaid loan could not be repaid and there was a default in the<br \/>\nrepayment of the loan amount. In order to liquidate the outstanding dues<br \/>\nthe directors of the respondent no.4 entered into a registered agreement<br \/>\nfor sale of the disputed plots on 6.10.1999 with the respondent no.6 on the<br \/>\ncondition that the respondent no.6 will deposit the amount of Rs.25 lacs<br \/>\nwhich was outstanding against the directors. The Branch Manager of the<br \/>\nconcerned branch of the State Bank of India, was also informed of the<br \/>\nmanner in which the directors proposed to clear outstanding dues i.e. 25<br \/>\nlacs would be deposited by the respondent no.6 and balance of Rs.4.7 lacs<br \/>\nwould be paid by the directors of the company who were the owners of<br \/>\nthe land and the State Bank of India accepted the proposal forwarded by<br \/>\nthe directors and entered into an agreement with the directors of the<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 company on 23.2.2003 agreeing under one time<br \/>\nsettlement on payment of Rs.29.7 lacs to the bank by the directors. The<br \/>\nentire amount was deposited in the bank against the loan whereupon no<br \/>\ndues certificate was issued by the Bank. The disputed plots were<br \/>\ntransferred by the directors of the respondent no.4 in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent no.6 by sale deed dated 9.7.2001. The respondent no.6 after<br \/>\ngetting its name mutated in the revenue records sub divided the disputed<br \/>\nplots into several sub plots and transferred them in favour of different<br \/>\n persons and the names of the transferees were also mutated over the<br \/>\nrespective plots purchased by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dues of the<br \/>\nemployees of the respondent no.4 are liable to be recovered from the sale<br \/>\nof the disputed plots. He has further stated that the claim put forward by<br \/>\nthe respondent nos. 6 and 7 that the disputed plots did not belong to the<br \/>\ncompany but are the personal properties of the directors of the company,<br \/>\nis absolutely false and incorrect. He further submitted that the disputed<br \/>\nplots were deliberately transferred by the directors of the respondent<br \/>\nno.4 to avoid the payment of lawful dues of the workmen of respondent<br \/>\nno.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the dues which<br \/>\nhave been sought to be recovered relate to the period prior to the date on<br \/>\nwhich the disputed plots were transferred in favour of respondent nos 6<br \/>\nand 7 and even if it is assumed though without admitting that the owner<br \/>\nof the disputed plots are the directors even then the recovery of dues<br \/>\nfrom the directors of the company in several cases has been permitted to<br \/>\nbe made and thus the arrears of the wages of the workmen of the<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 company are liable to be recovered from the disputed<br \/>\nplots.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sri T.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and 7 vehemently<br \/>\nurged that the respondent no.6 is<br \/>\nbonafide purchaser of the disputed plots for valuable consideration and<br \/>\nthe outstanding dues of the employees of the respondent no.4 can not be<br \/>\nrecovered from the disputed plots.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sri T.P.Singh next submitted that whether charge created on the<br \/>\ndisputed plots for payment of the arrears of wages of the employees of<br \/>\nthe respondent no.4 can not be enforced against the respondent no.6 who<br \/>\nis a transferee of the disputed plots and being a bonafide purchaser for<br \/>\nvaluable consideration, is entitled to get benefit of Section 15(1)(g) of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n parties and perused the record of the writ petition I am of the view that<br \/>\nthe submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties raise an<br \/>\nissue of fact with regard to the ownership of the disputed plots which<br \/>\nrequires taking of evidence and writ proceedings are not the appropriate<br \/>\nforum for deciding the said issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>The main question which is to be decided is that &#8211; whether disputed plots<br \/>\nwere the self acquired properties of the directors of the company or the<br \/>\ncompany was the owner thereof. There is no material on record filed by<br \/>\neither of the parties on the basis of which the court may decide the said<br \/>\nissue.\n<\/p>\n<p>In my opinion the Collector\/ District Magistrate, Allahabad who is<br \/>\nexecuting the impugned recovery certificate issued by the deputy labour<br \/>\ncommissioner under section 3 of the Act No.3 (Timely Payment of wages<br \/>\nAct 1979) can look into the question and decide the same after affording<br \/>\nopportunity to all concerned to lead evidence in support of their<br \/>\nrespective claims. The amount of Rs.5 lacs which has been deposited by<br \/>\nthe respondent no.4 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.11.2005<br \/>\nwith the collector\/district magistrate, Allahabad shall be kept by him till<br \/>\nthe matter is decided by the collector\/district magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is<br \/>\nfinally disposed of with the following directions:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 Sahyog Sahkari<br \/>\nSamiti shall set up their respective claims by filing representations before<br \/>\nthe respondent no.2 collector\/ district magistrate, Allahabad within a<br \/>\nperiod of two weeks from the date of issue of certified copy of this order ,<br \/>\nraising all the grievances which have been raised by them before this<br \/>\nCourt alongwith the material on which they propose to rely.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The respondent no.2 shall issue notice to the State Bank of India<br \/>\nrequiring the Manager of the concerned Branch to produce the mortgage<br \/>\ndeed executed by the directors of the company for securing loan obtained<br \/>\n by them in respect of the plot nos. 80 and 81 situated in chak Ata Ullah<br \/>\nNaini, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The respondent no.2 shall consider the matter in accordance with law<br \/>\nand decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of<br \/>\nthree months from the date of filing of representations as indicated<br \/>\nherein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is made clear that if any constructions are raised by the transferees<br \/>\nfrom the respondent no.7 on the disputed plots, the same shall be at their<br \/>\nown risk and shall abide with the final orders which may be passed in the<br \/>\nmatter by the collector\/district magistrate, Allahabad.<br \/>\nOrder Date :- 2.4.2010<br \/>\ncps\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 28 Case :- WRIT &#8211; C No. &#8211; 1101 of 2005 Petitioner :- Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union Naini Alld.Thru&#8217;President Respondent :- State Of U.P.&amp; Others Petitioner Counsel :- H.P. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2142,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010"},"wordCount":2142,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010","name":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union ... vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T13:24:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naini-glass-works-mazdoor-union-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naini Glass Works Mazdoor Union &#8230; vs State Of U.P.&amp; Others on 2 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}