Gurjinder Singh vs Secretary to Government of India and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily to challenge the order passed by the Government to decline the reference of an industrial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Postal Department.

The Petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) against a vacancy at Rajpura, District Patiala, on 11.9.1989. On 2.7.1990, one Lakhwinder Singh was appointed as EDDA in Post Office, Shambhu, where the Petitioner was earlier performing the duties. Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Rajpura (Respondent No. 4) informed Respondent No. 5 that no post of EDDA was available at Shambhu and requested that Lakhwinder Singh be adjusted at Post Office, Gaddapur, Tehsil Rajpura. Respondent No. 4 thereupon terminated the services of the Petitioner and in his place Lakhwinder Singh was appointed.

The Petitioner challenged this order by filing Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on merits on 3.7.2000. While dealing with the prayer made on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal observed that it would have no jurisdiction to entertain such matters covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a demand notice on 6.11.2000, which was rejected on 15.10.2001 by observing that there was no industrial dispute subsisting. The Petitioner then filed a review application before the Respondent-Government on 26.11.2001 and subsequently, after lapse of more than 3 years, approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 16289 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that review application filed by the Petitioner had been dismissed.

It may need a notice that the application for review of the order passed by the Government had been rejected on more than one occasion. Initially, the Petitioner was informed on 9.6.2003 (Annexure P-18) that there was no change in the stand already communicated through letter dated 15.10.2001. Still, the Petitioner was informed through communication dated 9.7.2004 (Annexure P-19) that decision on the review had already been taken and conveyed to him through letter dated 9.6.2003. Yet again, the Petitioner was informed through communication dated 1.12.2004 (Annexure P-20) that his demand for reinstatement had already been adjudicated finally by Central Administrative Tribunal on 3.7.2000 and, thus, the same could not be referred for industrial adjudication. The Petitioner was further apprised that he may file an appeal against this order, if he was not satisfied against the same. The Petitioner thereafter had not taken any action either to challenge the order passed by the Central Government or the one passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. He has suddenly now filed this writ petition, which though drafted in the year 2009 but has come up for hearing now in October 2010.

There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the Petitioner sat over his right to challenge the order or to claim reference of a dispute, which was declined 9 years ago. Even the order in review was declined 5 years ago but the Petitioner did not make any move to challenge the same either before this Court or otherwise. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on merits apparently has also not been put to any challenge. Delay in itself is a valid ground to decline the reference and in turn a good ground for the writ Court to decline interference.

The law, as laid down in the cases of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty AIR 2005 SC 839, Management of Indian Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh AIR 2001 SC 69, Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, , Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, (2002) 1 LLJ 457SC and Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others Vs. Union of India and others, , can be referred to in this regard. This Court has analyzed this position recently while deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 13123 of 2009 (Ali Salam v. State of Haryana and Anr.), on 7.7.2010 and has declined to interfere in the order, refusing to make reference of the dispute on the ground of delayed approach. Four to five years delay was held to be a long time for the workman to loose a right to seek remedy under the Act. The cases of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar 2008 (1) RSJ 443 and Personal Manager, SBI and Anr. v. Krishna Grameena Bank Employees Union and Anr. 2008 (1) RSJ 688, may be relevant in this regard.

Apart from the delay, this is a case where there is already an adjudication on merit by the Central Administrative Tribunal. This order will directly stare at the Petitioner and he has to cross this hurdle while seeking reference of the same dispute for adjudication by Labour Court. A long ago, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Union of Journalists and Others Vs. The State of Bombay and Another, and State of Bombay Vs. K.P. Krishnan and Others, , has viewed that the Government may consider prima-facie the merit of the dispute and take into account other relevant considerations while deciding the case for making reference and to see whether it would be expedient or not. The order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on merits would be a reason enough not to interfere in this case.

Accordingly, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.