IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3705 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Shri Krishan Chand .....Petitioner. Versus M/s Fedral Mogal Bearing India Ltd. & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Petitioner is a workman. Some dispute that arose between the workmen, including the petitioner and their employer, i.e. respondent No. 1, was pending in the Labour Court , in the month of July, 2009, when order dated 22nd April, 2009, Annexure P- 2, dismissing him from service, was passed. He filed an application, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming that, being a protected worker, within the meaning of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, he could not have been dismissed, when an earlier reference, concerning various workmen, including him, was pending. Also, he filed an application seeking interim relief of reinstatement pending disposal of application, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. That application has been dismissed by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- the Labour Court vide order dated 19th November, 2009, copy Annexure P-16. Present writ petition is directed against this order. 2. Labour Court has observed that the petitioner is not a protected workman, within the meaning of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been observed that in case, the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated, by means of an interim order that would amount to granting him the relief claimed in the main petition, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, itself. 3. Petitioner’s case is that he is entitled to the interim relief of reinstatement, on account of his being a protected worker. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent (employer) that dismissal of the petitioner has nothing to do with the earlier case nor does it have any correlation with the earlier reference and his dismissal is the result of an independent inquiry conducted under the disciplinary provisions of the standing orders and, therefore, petitioner is not a protected worker. In the absence of material on record, it cannot be said, at this stage, whether the petitioner is or is not a protected worker. The fact remains that he has already been dismissed and is no longer in the service of the respondent. He filed the application, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, three months after his dismissal and not immediately thereafter. 6. In view of the abovesaid position, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement by way of interim measure. So, -: 3 :- the petition is dismissed, with a direction to the Labour Court to decide the application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, moved by the petitioner, expeditiously, and in any case, before 31st December, 2010. (Surjit Singh) Judge 19th July, 2010 (rajni)