Civil Revision No. 3219 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3219 of 2008 Date of decision : March 05, 2010 Chand Ram ....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Workman has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 6.9.2007, Annexure P/7, passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court-I, Gurgaon requiring the workman to begin evidence instead of requiring the management of respondent no. 2 to begin evidence as ordered earlier. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that Labour Civil Revision No. 3219 of 2008 -2- Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is not under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It was contended that in some other similar cases, writ petitions were preferred and in the instant case also, the workman could assail the impugned order by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have carefully considered the contention but find no merit therein. Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Language of this Article is very plain and wide and does not permit two interpretations. The provision categorically stipulates that the High Court shall have power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is court/tribunal and therefore, High Court has power of superintendence over it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a different matter that Labour Court is under the administrative control of the State Government. However, power of superintendence vested in High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is completely different from the administrative control over the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is over-ruled and it is held that this Court has power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue Civil Revision No. 3219 of 2008 -3- involved in the instant revision petition is covered against the petitioner by judgment dated 22.1.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6575 of 2007 titled Amar Chakravarty versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and another, whereby bunch of writ petitions was disposed of. Accordingly, the instant revision petition has to be dismissed in view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Chakravarty (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Punjab Tractors Limited versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, (2008-1) PLR 342. However, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Chakravarty (supra). In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner workman has taken the plea that he has been victimised by the management for his trade union activities and the management has indulged in unfair labour practice. Onus of issue no. 2 framed on this plea of the petitioner-workman has been placed on him. In view thereof also, the petitioner workman has to begin the evidence instead of management. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Bharat Iron Works versus Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others, AIR 1976 SC 98(1) held that onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be upon the person pleading it. For this added reason as well, the impugned order requiring petitioner-workman to begin the evidence cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitions for Civil Revision No. 3219 of 2008 -4- Special Leave to Appeal have been preferred against judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Chakravarty (supra) and connected writ petitions and the said petitions are listed for hearing in Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.7.2010. However, operation of judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Chakravarty (supra) has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the present revision petition has to meet the same fate as in the case of Amar Chakravarty (supra) decided by Division Bench of this Court. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant civil revision petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 05, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'