AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 12.3.2001 (annexure-2), recovery certificate dated 10.9.2001 (annexure-3) and citation dated 20.4.2005 (annexure-7) passed by the respondents No. 1, 3 and 6 respectively.
Briefly stated that respondent No. 4 Arvind Kumar is an employee of the petitioner and was working in Jaspur Spinning Mill since 1991. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court III, Kanpur for adjudication u/s 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court passed in award on 12.3.2001 holding that the termination of respondent No. 4 is illegal and he was directed to be reinstated. The workman moved application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, for implementation of award and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur issued a recovery certificate to the Collector, Kanpur Nagar on 10.9.2001. Thereafter respondent No. 4 filed a Writ Petition No. 54877 of 2004 in the Allahabad High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Collector, Kanpur Nagar to recover the amount from the respondent No. 5 in pursuance of recovery certificate dated 10.9.2001. Allahabad High Court passed an interim mandamus on 22.12.2004 directing the Collector, Kanpur Nagar to recover the amount as per recovery certificate dated 10.9.2001 within a period of two1 months or to show cause.
The petitioner has submitted that it had taken over the Jaspur Spinning Mill, Jaspur on 20.8.2004. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.) of the petitioner department received a letter dated 31.1.2005 from the office of respondent No. 5 in which description of the Allahabad High Court''s order passed in Writ Petition No. 54877/2004 was made. The petitioner has further submitted that after he received this information, he filed an impleadment application on 28.2.2005 along with stay vacation application. The said application is still pending before the Allahabad High Court.
The petitioner has submitted that a citation dated 20.4.2005 was received in its office in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 10.9.2001 from the office of Tehsildar, Dehradun and they are pressing for the recovery/deposit of the amount mentioned in the citation. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as the Spinning Mill where the respondent No. 4 was working is situated in Uttaranchal, therefore, the Labour Court in Uttaranchal had alone jurisdiction and the dispute ought to have been referred to it but the respondent No. 4 obtained the award fraudulently from Labour Court III, Kanpur and as such the award is not-executable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Fizz Drinks Limited Vs. The Labour Court (2) and Another, . In both the cases it has been held that in case of termination of services of a workman, the State where the workman was working, is competent to make reference and situs of employment of workman determines jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the respondent No. 4 played fraud to the Court and had not come to the Court with clean hands, he is liable to be thrown out at any stage. In support of his assertion the learned Counsel placed reliance in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, , and Gowrishankar and Another Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust and Others, .
No. one can dispute the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid citations but in the present case the dispute has been referred to the Labour Court (2) at Kanpur by the Slate of U.P. u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, who passed award in favour of the workman. After getting award the workman, respondent No. 1 moved application to the Deputy Labour Commissioner Kanpur u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, for implementation of award. There titer, respondent No. 4 workman, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court being Writ Petition No. 54877 of 200 L in which interim mandamus was issued on 22.12.2004 directing the Collector, Kanpur Nagar to recover lite amount as per recovery certificate dated 10.9.2001: Petitioner filed impleadment application along with stay application before Allahabad High Court in the abovementioned writ petition, which is still pending for disposal. Thus Allahabad High Court is the only forum for the petitioner to get redressal of his grievances, whatever may be, from Allahabad High Court but the petitioner instead of approaching Allahabad High Court for disposal of his impleadment application and stay application, filed the present writ petition before this Court on the pretext that due to work load in the Allahabad High Court is unable to take up the matter for the decision, as mentioned by him in paragraph 20 of his writ petition. As certain High Court has burden of heavy work, no right can accrue to another High Court to dispose of the matters pending in that High Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as the recovery certificate dated 20.4.2005 has been issued by the Tehsildar, Dehradun (Uttaranchal), therefore, the Uttarauchal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to pass orders for staying the recovery citation. The recovery certificate has been issued by the Tehsildar, Dehradun in compliance of the interim mandamus dated 22.12.2004 passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ petition No. 54877 of 2004 and the entire proceedings, whatever may be, are the outcome of the award passed by the Labour Court (2), Kanpur and thereafter the order dated 22.12.2004 passed by Allahabad High Court, thus Allahabad High Court is only competent Court to adjudicate the grievances of the petitioner in the matter.
The writ petition has been filed in this Court without jurisdiction and it is summarily dismissed. No order as to costs.