CWP No. 15380 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15380 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 Phool Chand ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Petitioner in person. Mr.N.S.Virk, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for respondents 1, 2 & 5. Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral) Costs paid. Written statement is taken on record. The petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court CWP No. 15380 of 2009 2 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1, State of Punjab to refer the case of the petitioner to appropriate court. It is also prayed that directions be issued to respondent No.5 Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to take legal action against respondents No.3 and 4 for their unlawful appearance, to prolong the proceedings. Prayer further made is that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be restrained from taking illegal and unlawful action, just to provide the shelter to the defaulters. This case has chequered history. The petitioner was an employee of Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Ludhiana and since 1.6.1996 was working as Senior Laboratory Technician. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on misconduct. The stand of Management was that in spite of notices, he not appear in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner raised a demand under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) with the State Government. The State Government in exercise of powers under section 10 of the Act referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ludhiana. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner moved an application for interim relief. The application was dismissed, and petitioner directed to participate in the inquiry being conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour CWP No. 15380 of 2009 3 Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, approached this court by way of CWP No.11702 of 2008. The writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order:- “The petitioner contends that without holding any inquiry or without terminating his services, the petitioner is to continue and perform his duties for which he is entitled under the appointment which he was given. He submits that neither he is being granted any relief nor any monthly salary and in fact is not being allowed to enter in the hospital itself where he was appointed as a Senior Lab Technician. On notice having been issued, a preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the relief which has been claimed by the petitioner is against the respondent No. 3 which is a privately run hospital and does not fall within the ambit of the State as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that in any case, the grievance of the workman has been taken care of by the Government as the dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Ludhiana. It is, therefore, contended that the present writ petition in any case has been rendered infructuous in the light of the reference of the dispute where the workman can agitate his claim and grievance, if any. The factual aspect with regard to reference of the dispute by the appropriate Government before the Labour Court, is not CWP No. 15380 of 2009 4 denied. It is also not in dispute that the matter is pending before the Labour Court. In the light of the statement made by the respondents in their written statement, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as far as claim of the workman is concerned, as it will be open to the workman to approach the Labour Court for any of the grievances which he has put forth in this writ petition or if he has any other grievance in that regard. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.” In spite of the directions issued by this Court, to approach the Labour Court for his all grievances. The petitioner again approached this court, by filing Civil Writ petition No.16272 of 2009 which was decided on 12.11.2009 by passing the following order:- “1. The writ petition challenges an interim order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the claim by the workman that he had not been paid his wages and that he was also not permitted to enter upon his place of work. The contention of the management was that although a departmental enquiry has been constituted, the workman was not deliberately participating in the same. The Labour Court, therefore, found that the workman had not come to Court with clean hands and that he would not be entitled to any interim relief. Referring to Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act cited by the workman, the Labour Court observed that there is no provision for grant of any interim CWP No. 15380 of 2009 5 relief. Section 15 itself talks about the action for disposal of the case before the Labour Court and not to grant any interim reliefs. 2. The Labour Court while passing the interim relief has also directed the management to conclude the enquiry within two months. That is as fast as things could admit of. There is no material irregularity found in the order for any intervention in the writ petition. The workman shall be entitled to pursue such remedy as per law qua the claim for wages which has been denied to him in an admitted situation when his services have not been so far terminated. Subject to this liberty, the writ petition is dismissed.” It seems, that the petitioner had also moved, an application before respondent No.2, for initiating proceedings against the respondents for unfair labour practice, in which notice was issued. The application has been termed by the petitioner, as Suit No.435 of 2009. Thereafter the petitioner filed complaint against Jangi Lal Oswal. In spite of notice he did not appear. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ludhiana on 10.8.2009 ordered that no further opportunity shall be given to the respondents. No further order was passed on application moved by the petitioner i.e. either accepting, or rejecting the application The learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, thereafter started considering, another complaint filed by him, in which respondents appeared and contested the complaint. Again no final decision was taken on those CWP No. 15380 of 2009 6 applictions. So the grievance of the petitioner is that Assistant Labour Commissioner, Circle 6 was bound to take decision either to accept or reject the petition, but he could not sit over it without deciding it finally. There is force in this contention of the petitioner. Prayer of the petitioner, therefore, is accepted to this extent. The respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the complaint made by the petitioner, within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. As far as other prayers are concerned, the petitioner is not entitled any relief as there is no provision under the Act to direct the Superintendent of Police to take action against the respondents if any irregularity is committed in court proceedings, as it is for the petitioner to approach the said court. As regards the allegations made against the respondents that there has been irregularity, in prosecuting the proceedings, no case is made out to initiate any action. The prayer Nos. 2and 3 made by the petitioner is rejected and qua claim No.1, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take final decision on the complaint/representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 16.08.2010 Judge rp