= «R u-^K c IN^ THE_5IGH GOHBT OF JtIDICA'rOBS AT t®I£_?BTITIOB_'So, ^^8 A 2002 pEiiriQSffi Gaaga Prasad Tripa-fchi, son of Purushottaa Prasad, aged about ?0 years,' occapations ex. eaployee of S.E.G.L. (Grade-I Clerk ), resident of 8tn C-odhar R.S., P.0. Rewa, Dist: Rewa (M.P). Versus HESPONDENrS s ''\-A Sl'""- .,'i.^W" 1. Unlon of India: Through; Secretary, Governiaent of India, Ministry of Labour, Udyog Baawan, New Delhi. 2. Qhairman-cum-Managing Direcfcor, S.E.G.L., Bxlaspur (C.G). 3. Chief General Manager, S.S.C.L., Baikuntpur Area, Dxst.Korea(CG). •^?*^^' &-;*^~Z^* Deputy Caief Personnel Manager, .---^-:k'C'7^^:""w^ J.E.G.L., JMlimili Snb-Area, s, "••••"^"h(\S•'•.'•'•"^<L^^-—'^T3ist:Korea (G.G). ^^^^' fio^ WII PETITiqH UMDER .ffi{'FIGLE226V 2^Z_OS_^@. '"? .^ aii^t^il "f5:li5?3tlt?T ^^NT'aft^ •s^ •^pn?Fr, '^gtwrs, fawiyy WWfTcb*11<»^....^.....M.^..l..^ sn^r ?'Riiwaf?ti Shri Shailesh A.huja,c4 5hri i-i.B. Aqrawai,cou^ The petitioner has pr| 226/227 cf the Constitutit order cated 19-11-99. . The petitioner's petitii| the S.E.C.L. in the year 197^ time to time ond he was aiso 1996 passed by' the Chief cartcin aiieflations we.re· broi A''s"h •rne pernwr.er· aiong wn'n stoppage of the working -o' essentlal services and saferl Minlng 5IR&AR, Sought Jha^ bubey, Sub Area AAoinOyer, wironufuliy confined Senior petitioner was dlsmissed w.e." The petitioner made 16-9-96 and ths ostiticner order before the Chairman-u +i<<l<-f-fl-i imaf ^ 1^A <r«-t{i< ^sipgitsn^l unsei for The petitionep. tf> se! for responoents. fsrred this w?-it Dstition under nrticies in of India chaiSenging hls 1'errTiinctior, ^ is that he was appointed ten'ipor'ariiy in and his appolntmen" was extended froiTi promoted. Vide order dated 30 August reneml Manager, S.E.C.L., Hasdeo Ar'ea, ight against the petitiorie?" clleging that her empioyees has forcibly caused the the mines, disrupted the productjon, of the mines, asseuited Rainji Tiwari, khand Coliiery, wrongfully confined S.N. ajnagci' open cast at Ssctor-A ' and als.3 txecutivss at the guest house and the 30"il Augusr 1996. a r-epresentation (Annexure-P/2) on jad also fi!ed an cposal cigainst the said icaina &irector and ited thersir] £:-HC-22 311^1 qil ft;ii?;sn^i '^4 ^lf^f 'S^ '<iWWLf, 9-AWW. iqcliyy WHPIi' ait|l<ti fq^S' •^h-,Ti' rtll •S'i^^. /?l!?s[.rt.'T*'!n^^ K^'^tir; aii^rti lu^ii liKC' ^Ai iCrf^^A i tWf F' dnTed 30 August 1996 ai petitioner was considered between the Mana9ement a W,^.. ; s-'i •iS^i'.^'^'/f ^i r^t? .^"t^fMi^ ^•"iW „. ' i"i£.i?i^iUi's^y us» Lxi&si'E^ iyr'."^. 27-12-97. After his reins|1 settisrnent, the /Aanagem^n advantage cnd harassed the iyrade-II or Srade-III Clel petitioner refused to do so, assiqnad to him o" leave his except to do so in order to s\ was ailotted to oerform tt'' normatSy the petitioner was n|? granted one annual incremenl petitioner on 18-11-99. Hs wcs not consider'eo' by the ^ of tha petitioner vide order Detiticner was on ieave fl^ terminated. ci'>l^i^('^Tl 'RFMf ^ f^[^t ^f^gH ^; sipin sn^g agcinst him and meiitioned in ths order \e baseless. The cppeal fiied by tne land some settlement was a"rivec at jnd the petitioner'. Ths petitioner was I" Pandiwparis Coiiiery vlde order dated |t'ctement and signing of the 'H' Forrri it authorities started 1-akihQ undus ^petitioner by giving hiiTi the work which 'k was supposed to do and when the he was asked elther to accept the work job. The petitioner had no other option bve hi ,'e his services. Secondiy, the petitioner ie duties during second nights, which >t required to do. The pe+iticner v<as not A show cause notice was isaued to the !submitted his exDtanation but 'the sarne ^anagement and terrriinated the ssrvicss dated 19-11-39. &urin9 that perioc the 'id his services have been wrongfui!y I haye heard the learn^d counsei for the parties. Xl-HC-22 T^ -^ww^, WTSW'W, hwwy sn^r'cRi ft^sn^i ?h-) '^f$d tffWII ^iWqi StI^I ^RHW :Hf?g -3- Learned counsei for| refersnce has already Industriai Tr'ibunai-cum-Labdi sub-section (1) and sub-sed Disputes Act, 1947 yide further submitted that the with the Central Sovernrneil! remedy is availabie to the pe^ Learned counse! for petil-ion may be disposed should co-oper'ate with th^ Tribuna! to decide the refgi) counsel for •the respondents Counsel for the setitifc oB" decided within a Deriod of aecided so far. In the given situation] at the eariiest tookin9 to the^ Having heard the te<jr i'eaard to the above referehce chWitn^^ ^(TH<vtt ^ fet^ ^TSlPOTSllt^I the respondents submitted that ths mcde to the Central (Sovsrnmsnt ur CourT at Jabalpur under clause (d) of |ion (2A) of Section 10 of the Industi'lal lAnnexure-A dated 6-9-2002. Counse! petitioner is required to pursue his case ht Industria! Tribunai. Since aiterriative •itioner, ths petition :is not maintainable. Ithe petitioner submitted that this writ f with a direction that the respondents petitioner and they shouid assiat the 'ence at the eariiest to whieh the learned has no objection. •ifcner further subrnil-ted that in refe.-^nce order dated 6-9-2002 it wils ordered that the reference should be 3 months, but refsrence has not been the Tribunat should decide the reference terms of the reference made. •ned counse! for the parties and having order dated 6-9-2002, the petition is XI-HC-22 an^rqii 'r<,-fi.+ sni^T ctitlict>' ^lf^I •ill 'S^ •^wm^, afll'M'is, ftiwiyy . /'yrl ^>J sn^sr TRiiWHf^t -21- disposed of, as the matter has ©overnmentIndustrici Tribunai-l the Tribunal should expedite iecide it a" ths eariiest. *L ln view of the aboye, the Parties we entitted for c^r <^t^<¥f^l'1*ii^<ni' ^ fi1c^ ^•SlpTOSII^I already been referred to the Centrai sum-Labou" Court, Jobalpur. However, ^ he hearincr of the rsference and to f^ ^"s ^i ^^s ..^ ?^ fMf^^^?^J^ f^ ;^ i ^?^*^^ '?*1--^-?&1 /h ^B /s^riT peTiTion STcnss OESPOSSG OT 'tified coov of thia ordei-. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge