1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Dau Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3285/2008 Date of Order : : 03/11/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.Manoj Bohra for Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman has challenged the order Annexure-5 dated 12th July, 2007 to the extent declining to make a reference on the ground that the respondent-Institution has already been declared as relief undertaking and in view of the provision of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act” hereinafter), no reference can be made in respect of establishment which has been decarled as relief undertaking. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order Anneuxre-2, the respondent-employer exempted for the requisite educational qualification for the appointment and by exempting requisite education qualification, the petitioner has been appointed w.e.f. 15.8.94, however, the financial sanction was w.e.f. 1st April, 1995. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by this Court in a bunch of writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.486/2006; Manager, Spinning Unit Gangapur now known as Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and 11 others, decided on 16th October, 2006 wherein this Court held that in respect of establishment/industry declared as relief undertaking, the provision of ID Act shall not be applicable, however, that shall be confined to the period for which the respondent Industry/establishment has been declared as relief undertaking. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order Annexure-4 dated 17th May 2007, the respondent industry has been declared relief undertaking and that order 3 came to be extended for further one year by order dated 22nd September, 2008 and according to learned counsel for the respondents, the respondent-State was justified in not making the reference for adjudication of industrial dispute. From the perusal of the order Annexure-4 dated 17th May, 2007, it is clear that the respondent-Rajasthan State Cooperation Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation (Spinfed), Jaipur has been declared relief undertaking and the period for such declaration has been extended from 12.10.2008 to 11.10.2009 vide order dated 22nd September, 2008 and this Court elaborately considered the question of legislative competence and the period for which the respondent-employer has been declared relief undertaking. This Court has held as under:- “The State Government by issuing notification under Section 3 does not permanently debar the legal proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Suspension of such legal proceedings is only co-terminus with the time till the concerned industry remains a relief undertaking. This does not therefore take away a remedy available to a workman permanently. Movement the industry seize to be a relief 4 undertaking, proceedings before the learned labour court or the industrial tribunal, as the case may be, under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would stand revived. In a situation like this, endeavor of the courts should be to apply the principle of harmonious interpretation to make both the enactments workable. Since legislative compliance for enacting both the Acts in pith and substance emanate from demarcated area of legislative power referable to separate entries though i the same concurrent list, there does not arise any question of conflict between the two, let alone any repugnancy. As held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. (supra) a duty is cast on the courts to harmoniously construe two enactments and the provisions contained therein and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the proceedings before the labour court could be continued even when the industry concerned has been declared as a relief undertaking.” Keeping in view the decision of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions referred hereinabove, in my view, the respondents were justified in passing the order Annexure-5 Dated 12th July,2007. 5 In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK