w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Vardhman Spinning Mills v/s Lal Babu Gupta & Others

    C.W.P. No. 665 of 2018

    Decided On, 30 October 2019

    At, High Court of Himachal Pradesh


    For the Petitioner: Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, Devyani Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Rakesh Manta, Advocate.

Judgment Text

1. By way of this Petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and after summoning the record and granting an opportunity of hearing, a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction may be issued quashing the Claim Petition Annexure P9 titled as Lal Babu Gupta v. Vardhman Spinning Mills pending before the learned Labour Court, Shimla and all consequential proceedings therein being not maintainable”.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present Petition are that vide Annexure P3 i.e. communication, dated 5.9.2016, Petitioner/ Employer ordered termination of the Witnesses of Respondent No.1 herein on the ground that he stood physically incapacitated to perform his duties.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No.1/Workman (hereinafter to be referred as 'Workman') filed an Application under Section 75, read with Sections 76 & 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 before the Statutory Tribunal. An application was also filed, praying for interim relief and vide Order, dated 18.1.2017, the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Shimla, H.P. confirmed the interim relief granted to the Workman on 2.9.2016, by restraining the present Petitioner from dismissing the services of the Workman during the pendency of the Petition. The application filed under Employees State Insurance Act, was allowed in favour of Workman by the learned Court vide Order, dated 4.9.2017 (Annexure P6).

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings under the Insurance Act, an application was filed by the Workman for framing of an additional issue for adjudication with regard to correctness of the act of the Employer of dispensing with his services. This application was dismissed by the learned Court by holding that it was not within the jurisdiction of the said Court to adjudicate the issue and the Workman was at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Thereafter, the Workman invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal i.e. the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, under Section 2-A thereof vide Annexure P9. In the said Petition, Workman prayed for the following reliefs:

“In view of the facts/circumstances mentioned above and in the interest of justice, it is most humbly prayed that the Respondent may be restrained not to alter, discharge or terminate the services of the Petitioner pending Industrial Dispute. Consequent thereto, the Termination Letter, dated 5.9.2016 bearing No.V.S.M./I.R.2016/159 reference whereof is given in Annexure P9 may be declared illegal, null & void as such be quashed & set aside. Further, the Respondent may be ordered to release the legitimate dues of Petitioner such as bonus w.e.f. April, 2015, increment, promotional benefits including hike in salary etc. along with all consequential relief. In addition thereto, the Petitioner may be allotted accommodation of two room set as was earlier allotted to him”.

6. It its reply filed to the said Petition, present Petitioner inter alia took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the said Petition inter alia on the ground that as the Workman happened to be in job, therefore, application so filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not maintainable. This Petition has also been filed by the present Petitioner for quashing of Annexure P8, on this ground alone that the Petition, which stands filed by the Workman under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not maintainable as Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be invoked by the Workman, who is still in job.

7. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that indeed the proceedings initiated by the Workman under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act otherwise also have been rendered infructuous for the reasons that the Order of Termination, dated 5.9.2016 has subsequently been withdrawn by the Employer.

8. At this stage, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that this was only an interim arrangement made by the Employer during the pendency of the proceedings and the Respondent apprehends that immediately after closure of the present Petition, his services will be arbitraly dispensed with by the Petitioner.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that, that it shall not be so and the services of the Workman shall not be dispensed with except in accordance with law.

10. In view of the statement so made by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, this Petition is disposed of by closing the proceedings which stood initiated by the Workman under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but with the direction that services of Respondent No.1 shall not be terminated except in accordance with law. The closure of the proceedings under Section 2-A of the Indu

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

strial Disputes Act, will not come in the way of the Workman for invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, or any other statutes for redressal of his grievance, against the Petitioner. 11. Either of the party are at liberty to bring into the notice of the learned Tribunal the order which has been passed by this Court today so that proceedings initiated under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, can be formally closed. 12. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim Order, if any, also stands vacated.