R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioners, who are 14 in number, were employees of Hari Fertilizers, Sahupuri, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the employer) and are residing in the quarters in Industrial Housing Colony, Sahupuri, Varanasi. Consequent to the closure of the factory in 1989 the employer terminated the services of the petitioners and gave them notices for vacation of the residential quarters allotted to them. Petitioners not having delivered possession of the residential quarters to the employer reminders were given to them, but without any result. Ultimately the employer has filed identical complaints under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), U.P. Allahabad against them for their prosecution and conviction under the above provision and for direction to the petitioners to deliver up residential accommodations in their possession to the employer-complainant. Those complaints have been filed on the ground that residential accommodations were allotted to the petitioners at the time when they were working in the complainant's factory and after their services have been terminated they are not entitled to keep the residential quarters in their possession and not having delivered possession of those accommodations they are liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 630 of the Act. Petitioners have filed this writ petition against the above complaints. With the following prayers: (i) to issue a suitable writ, direction or order commanding the Respondent Company not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the quarters in which the petitioners have been living, the details of which haves been given in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and withdraw the notices and complaints requiring them to vacate the quarters. (ii) to issue a suitable writ, direction or order commanding the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Allahabad to bring up the records of the company cases (details given in Annexure-2) filed by the Respondent Company and get the proceedings quashed. (iii) to issues a writ, in the nature of prohibition or any other writ, direction or order commanding the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) not to proceed with the hearing of the company cases the details of which were given in Annexure-2. (iv) to issue any other writ, direction or order or grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and (v) to order for costs to the petitioners."
(2.) The Stamp Reporter of this Court has reported deficiency of court fee of Rs. 1365/-. Petitioners raised objection against this report and the Taxation Officer has approved it on the ground that right to reliefs does not arise from one common order and as such in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Umesh Chandra v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (AIR 1984 Alld. 46) each petitioner has to pay separate court fee. Petitioners have filed objection against the above report.
(3.) When the case was taken up Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, requested the Court to decide the question of payment of court fee. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.;