Delhi High Court
Container Corporation Of India vs Container Corporation Of India ... on 11 December, 1997
Author: C Joseph
Bench: C Joseph
JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Annexure 1 dated 20th August, 1997 passed by respondent No. 2 declaring the office bearers of respondent No. 1 union as protected workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for the year 1996. While issuing notice to the respondents I had referred to the petitioner's contention that the appropriate government in the case of the petitioner was the Central Government and hence that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It was also observed that an objection regarding jurisdiction was raised by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 but the said objection had not been considered by respondent No. 2. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union & Others JT 1996 Vol II SC 109.
2. When this case came up for consideration today, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the writ petition itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned order was relevant only for the year 1996 and hence this writ petition has become infructuous. He also submitted that respondent No. 1 has already approached the Central Government for declaration of the office bearers of respondent No. 1 union as protected workmen for this year and that the matter is pending before the Central Government. He further submitted that the appropriate government in the case of the petitioner being the Central Government, the impugned order may be quashed on the ground that respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the Central Government may be directed to dispose of the application of respondent No. 1 for declaration of its office bearers as protected workmen for the current year expeditiously. The Central Government is not a party to this writ petition. Hence, it will not be proper to issue any direction to the Central Government in the matter.
4. Since the respondents have not disputed the petitioner's contention that the appropriate Government in the case of the petitioner is the Central Government and in view of the submissions made by counsel for respondent No. 1, this writ petition is disposed of quashing the impugned order on the ground that respondent No. 2 did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. I make it clear that I have not considered or decided any other contention raised by the petitioner.
5. In several cases it has come to this Court's notice that the authorities concerned do not promptly dispose of applications regarding declaration of workmen as protected workmen for the purpose of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Often the applications are kept pending by granting requests of the parties for adjournment and ultimately the applications and order, if any thereon become infructuous by efflux of time. Since the declaration of workman as protected workmen is for one year, it is necessary that the applications for declaration of workmen as protected workmen are disposed of as early as possible and within a reasonable time so that the applications do not become infructuous. If there has been any delay in disposing of the application of respondent No. 1 by the Central Government, it is open to respondent No. 1 to move the authorities concerned for the early disposal of the application. It is also open to respondent No. 1 to bring this order to the notice of the authorities concerned.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
