Chattisgarh High Court
D.P. Saraf (Petitioner In Person) vs Government Of India on 23 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(C) No.3204 of 2022
D.P. Saraf (Petitioner In Person) S/o Late K. A. Sharaf Aged About 64 Years R/
o Quarter No. E-22, 15 Black S.E.C.L. Colony Korba, Tahsil And District
Korba, Chhattisgarh ----Petitioner
Versus
1. Government Of India Through Cabinet Secretary, Govt. Of India, Rastrapati
Bhawan New Delhi,- 110004, District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. Government Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And
Employment, Shramshakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001,
District : New Delhi, Delhi
3. Government Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Shastri
Bhawan,, District : New Delhi, Delhi
4. Government Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice, 4th
Floor A Wing Shastri Bhawan, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Respondents
Petitioner in person.
Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, counsel for the Respondents.
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Order On Board
Per Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
23.08.2022
1. Heard Petitioner present in person.
2. In earlier preferred W.P(S) No.392/2012, the Petitioner has challenged
the constitution of Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (JBCCI)-IX
on the basis of wage revision of the workmen in the coal industry on the
ground that such constitution was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and has also challenged the National Coal Wage
Agreement-VIII through W.P(S) No.2914/2009 which was effective for a period
commencing from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2011 and both the Writ Petitions were
dismissed against which, the Petitioner has preferred Writ Appeals
No.282/2021 and 321/2021, which were also dismissed holding that the same
were not fit to be entertained and allowed, vide judgment passed by this Court
on 13.05.2022.
3. In view of the judgments passed in Writ Appeal Nos.282/2021 and
321/2021, the Petitioner in person, by way of this Petition, seeks to declare the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Industrial Dispute (Central), Rules 1957 ultra
vires on the ground that they are rendered meaningless. Amongst other
grounds, the Petitioner also seeks to abolish the Ministry of Labour as also the
Ministry of Law and Justice. Alternatively, the Petitioner also pleads for
overruling the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.321/2021 on
13.05.2022, on the basis of redundant pleadings, which have no legal sense at
all and the comparisons made by him appear to be very contemptuous. To
further illustrate, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the pleadings
made in paras-8.7 and 8.8 of the present Petition which are as under:-
"8-7 ;g fd iwjs ns'k es ,d U;k; ikfydk gh gS ftldk
loksZPp mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk dkWysft;e ds rgr mPp
U;k;ky; ds U;k;/kh'k rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;k;/kh'kksa dh
fu;qfDr dh tkrh gS gkykfd mPp ,oa mPpre U;k;ky; ds
U;k;/kh'kksa ds fu;qfDr ds laca/k es dksbZ izko/kku dkuwu
vFkok :y ugha gS blds i'pkr Hkh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;
ds eq[; U;k;kf/kifr ,oa ofj"B U;k;k/kh'kksa ds }kjk dkWysft;e
flQkfj'k ds varxZr vU; U;k;k/kh'kksa dh fu;qfDr dh tkrh gSA
dkWysft;e ds fy;s dksbZ dkuwu ,oa fu;e ugha cuk gS ,Sls esa
ekuuh; Mcy csap ds vkctosZ'ku ds izdk'k esa dkWysft;e
flLVe dks lekIr dj dkuwu ,oa U;k; ea=ky; }kjk gh
ekuuh; ttksa dh fu;qfDr;kW fd;k tkuk pkfg;s ;fn
dkWysft;e ds izko/kku lgh gS rks dkuwu ,oa U;k; ea=ky; dk
cus jgus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg x;k gSA ,Sls esa dkuwu ,oa
U;k; ea=ky; dks Hkh lekIr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA
8-8 ;g fd ekuuh; Mcy csap ds dafMdk&16 ds vkctosZ'ku
ds izdk'k esa tks O;oLFkk mPp ,oa mPpre U;k;ky; ds
U;k;f/k'kksa ds fu;qfDr gsrq mPpre U;k;ky; dks dkWysft;e ds
varxZr izkIr gSA mDr vkctosZ'ku ds vk/kkj ij dkWysft;e ds
varxZr dksy ea=ky; vkSj dksy bafM;k ,oa lcflMjh dks Hkh
vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS D;k bls U;k;ksfpr Bgjk;k tk ldrk gS
\ D;ksfd JBCCI dk xBu ,oa mlesa lEefyr inkf/kdkjh
vu&jftLVMZ VªMs ;wfu;u ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr djus
esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds led{k dkWysft;e ds Lo:i
esa fd;k x;k gS] tks dksy ea=ky; dks ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; ds led{k [kMk djrk gS] tks dnkfi lgh ugha
Bgjk;k tk ldrkA"
4. The translated version of the aforesaid pleadings has been provided by
the Petitioner, which is also reproduced hereunder:-
"8.7 That there is only one judiciary in the whole
country, whose appointments are made by the
Supreme Court under the Collegium, the judges of
the High Court and the judges of the Supreme
Court, however, there is no provision of law or rule
regarding the appointment of the judges of the High
and Supreme Court. Even after this, other judges
are appointed by the Chief Justice and senior
judges of the Honorable Supreme Court under the
recommendation of the Collegium. No law and
rules have been made for the collegium. In the light
of the observation of the Bench, the appointment of
honorable judges should be done by the Ministry of
Law and Justice by abolishing the collegium
system. In such a situation, the Ministry of Law and
Justice should also be abolished.
8.8 That in the light of the observation of the
Hon'ble Double Bench's Paragraph-16, the
arrangement is available to the Supreme Court
under the Collegium for the appointment of Judges
of the High and Supreme Court. On the basis of
the above observation, the Ministry of Coal and
Coal India and Subsidiary have also been
empowered under the Collegium, can it be
justified? Because JBCCI has been constituted and
incorporated in it in the form of collegium equivalent
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in appointing office
bearers of unregistered trade union, which makes
the Ministry of Coal on par with Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which has never been justified."
5. In so far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, this Court finds that
the grievances raised by the Petitioner have already been dealt with and
entertained in detail and solemn orders have already been passed which could
not give any fresh cause of action or foundation to challenge the vires of the
aforesaid Act and the Rules as put forth by the Petitioner.
6. This Court also takes note of the fact that in the backdrop of the earlier
litigations preferred by the Petitioner, he fails to demonstrate a substantial
cause of action in the present Petition. Considering the pleadings made which
are not only contemptuous and irrelevant, but also incoherent in nature, the
present Petition is totally misconceived for any relief, as prayed for.
7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Petition,
being devoid of any substance, cannot be entertained and the same deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
