/\FR K" /(5"l^n<^7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3339 of2007 D.S.Jaiii, S/o Late Shri G.L.Jain, aeed about 65 years Presideiit, Industiial Court (CGIR Act) atid Presidina OfiBeer, Industrial Tribunal flndustrial Tribunal Disputes Act Raipiu- (Clihattisgarh) : State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Dtiptifttnent of Labouf, MantraSaya, Dau Kalyan Sinsh Bhawan, Raipur fChhattisgarh) WRfT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA ( Single Bench : Hon'Me Justice Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. Present: Shri Manindra Slirivastava, 8r. Advocate with Shri Devendra Patel, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur- Govt. Advocate tor the State. (Passedon 18tt day of June, 2007) 1. The petitioner is the President of Industrial Court (CGIR Aet) and Presidine Ofiicer, Industrial Tribunal (Industrial Disputes Act), Raipw. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution, on the basis of reasonable apprehension of issue of an order of recoverv/removal from the oflice of t'ae President. Industrial Coun and Prssidins Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Tne bas.is of his apprehension is newspaper reoorts annexed at Anaexiire P/8 and P/9. 2. Shri Maniadra Shrivastava, leamed Sr. Advocate appearing wifh Shri Devendra Patel, leamed Advocate for the petitioner, subniits that fhe petitioiier had leamt from one member of Legislative Assembly in Chhattisgarh Vidhaa Sabha that a question was raised in regard to the leeality of bis appointmeat wherein the Government justified fhe aooointment offhe petitioner beina in accordanee with law. However, it was sttrted that there are certam complaints made agaiiKt him in which eertain enauiries are oending. The petitioner has further apprehensioa on tfae basis of a news item appeared in "Dainik Bhaskai-", Raipur published ;<-=3;" s^~ ^- on 03.10.2006 (Annexure P/8) and news report published in "Jansatta". Raipur on 28.05.2007, that the Govemment is contemplatins to take some action asainst the petitioner, which causes embarrassment. 3. Leamed counsel clearlv admits ttiat neither anv notice has been issued to the petitioner bv the State Govemmeat nor anv action has been taken against the petitioner by the State Govemment. However, in view ofthe above stated facts, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that there may be some order for recovery/removal of him from the ofBce he is holding at present. The contention ofthe petitioner bn all other issues like competence of the State Govemment to take action aeainst him undermines the independence of Labour Judiciary, cannot be considered at this stage as no action either has been proposed or has been taken aeainst fhe petitioner. The petitioner has ao materials to indicate that whether anv show cause notice has been issued except that some mfonnation has allegedly been given by one member of the Legislative Assembly and certain newspaper reports, authenticity ofwhich is also not established. have published news. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner farther relies on the decision of Supreme Court AIR 1954 8C 403 (Himmatlal Harilal Mehta Vs. State of M.P. & Others) in order to support his contention, fliat this petition is maintaiaable even on flie alleged apprehension. The question ofvalidity of the altemative remedv under provisions of C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, was in consideration. and as such the same is not applicable to the facts ofthe case. 5. A Constitartion Bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of K.K.Kochumu v. State ofMadras CAIR 1959 SC 725^ whiie considerine 7. the breach of the fundamental riahts actual or threatened. of such risht held that mere existence of an adeauate altemative legal remedv cannot per se be a eood and sufticient ground for throwing out a petition under Art. 32, if the existence of a fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened, of such risjit is allesed and is prima facie established on the petrtion. Subsequently, aeain a Constitutional Bench ofHon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh Bhoi v. State ofOrissa 1972(1) Supreme Court Cases 63, while considerina the apprehension offhe petitioner with resard to the validity ofthe Act or a provision which was yet to be notified, has obsen.'ed as under: .....It seems to us that the Courts ordinarily ought not to go into fhe question of the validity of an Act or a provision of an Act unless it has been brousht into force. Till then, such a question would be academic. No body can be aggrieved by a provision oflaw which is donnant and which camiot be enlbrced. ...." In the mater ofChanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 361, while considering fhe apprehension ofthe petitioner that the punitive action may be taken against the petitioner ia the disciplinary proceedines still pending held as under: "5. Other obstacles in the wav oferantine the appellant reliefwere also ^ ursed before the Hish Court and before us, but we are not inclined to investigate them for the short reason that tlie writ petition was in any case premature. No punitive action has yet been taken. It is difficult to state, apart from speculation. what the outcome ofthe proceedines will be. In case the apDellant is punished, it is certainlv open to him either to file an -.— •/......_._. appeal as provided in the relevant mles or to take other action that he mav be advised to resort to,.." "6. We are satisfied that, enoueli unto the dav being the evil thereof. we need not dwell on problems which do not arise in the light of'the view we take that there is no present grievance ofpunitive action which can be ventilated in court...." 8. Further, in Mra. Kunda S. Kadam v. Dr. K.K.Soman and Others, C1980) 2 SCC 355, wherein the question of law involved was as to whetlier the recommendation of the Public Service Commission without any proper order passed bv the Municipal Corporation, can be challeneed in a petition under Aiticle 226 oftlie Constitiition, observed that the time has not arrived for the Court to adiudicate upon the merits and that the writ petition itselfwas premature as it was open to the Municipal Corporation to accept tfae recommendation or not to accept the reeommendation. 9. In view of the well settled principles of law that the Court should not adjudicate upon the apprehension which carmot be acted upon without prooer notice or proper order. This court should not adiudicate upon the matters as the writ petition is premature. The case on hand is of similar nature as no action has been taken on the part offhe State Govemment, and fhe petitioner has not established the existence ofa fiindamental right and a breach, aetual or threatened, of such ri.eht. 10. Thus, tliis petition is dismissed as beine premature, summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Arrut T.IT^" Er'