Waris Mohd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1434 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of retrenchment dated 15.4.2004 and a direction that he be allowed to continue on the post of Depot Manager-Grade II at U.P. Handlooms Showroom, Nehru Place, New Delhi, presently held by him.

2. Petitioner joined U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., i.e., respondent No. 3 in 1979. Petitioner had joined as a Salesman, got promoted as Senior Salesman and finally as Depot Manager-Grade II, upon being transferred from Ambala to Munirka.

3. Petitioner assails notice dated 12/13.4.2004, published in Amar Ujala, mentioning names of 866 employees for retrenchment w.e.f., 15.4.2004 including that of petitioner. Petitioner claims that respondents failed to comply with the requisite mandatory provisions for retrenchment. Petitioner also assails the rehabilitation package approved by the State Government. Petitioner is aggrieved since his name in the seniority list displayed on 6.4.2004, is shown at Sr. No. 40. It is claimed that the seniority list has been wrongfully manipulated to show 15 persons, who are junior to the petitioner, as seniors. Petitioner states that he has been working in the Regional Office at New Delhi under a Regional Manager and claims that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the writ petition. While issuing show-cause notice on 28.5.2004, Union of India was deleted as not being a proper or necessary party. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the lack of jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner is assailing the retrenchment notice, which was issued by respondent No. 3 i.e., U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. It was published in Amar Ujala in U.P. Petitioner assails the rehabilitation package, which was again approved by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were located in UP. The seniority list, which is assailed, was also made by respondent No. 3 and put up on the notice board in UP. In other words, it is urged that no part of cause of action, relevant for the purposes of writ petition, has arisen in Delhi. Petitioner received his salary drawn and sent by respondent No. 3.

5. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand in support of his contention that the present writ petition be entertained, submits that petitioner works in Delhi. He submits that respondent No. 3 has been acting in a discriminatory manner and adopting a policy of pick and choose. Respondent No. 3 did not arise any objection of jurisdiction in the case of R.K. Bhola. v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. in WP (C) No. 4530 of 1998 and the writ petition was duly entertained by a learned Single Judge of this Court and relief granted. He submits that petitioner therein was also working as Depot in charge under the Regional Marketing and Manager. Reference is also made to WP (C) No. 4051 of 97 titled K.K. Singh v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., wherein the Division Bench of Punjab High Court entertained the writ petition. He further submits that since respondent No. 3 had not taken objection to jurisdiction in these proceedings, he should be precluded from taking objection in the present case also.

6. I am not persuaded to accept this argument. In the case of R.K. Bhola v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., (supra) the challenge was to a show cause notice for termination of services for negligent act, committed at the Sales Depot. The show-cause notice was challenged as having been issued without holding any inquiry into the matter in question. This was the admitted position before the learned Judge. Further, a recovery was also sought to be made of Rs. 1,21,573.70. A perusal of the said order dated 22.5.2002 does not show that the projection of jurisdiction was raised. There is no discussion on this aspect. Similar is the situation in titled K.K. Singh v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (supra) Here also challenge was to an order of recovery. The recovery had been ordered pursuant to the additional inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner's grievance was that he was not associated with the additional inquiry and got no opportunity. Here also, there is nothing on record to show that the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction was ever raised before the Court.

7. The aforesaid decisions, accordingly, cannot be binding for entertainment of this writ petition, especially when there is nothing to indicate that the objection as to the lack of jurisdiction was ever raised or considered by the Courts. On the other hand WP (C) No. 10964/04 Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India was a similar petition filed through the same Counsel, filing the present petition. This petition was withdrawn after some arguments to approach the Court of Competent jurisdiction at Allahabad. On a question of propriety, I may also mention that earlier writ petitions bearing Nos. 28354/2004 titled Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 28353/2004 titled Rajendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 28355/2004 titled Ravindra Kumar Asthana v. State of UP and Ors. 28198/2004 titled Rafi Ahmad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. and 28105/2004 titled Riyazuddin v. State of UP and Ors. had been filed by the employees of respondent No. 3, questioning the alleged retention of persons juniors to them, while they were sought to be retrenched. The Court after hearing the petitioners in its detailed judgment held that there was an alternate efficacious remedy available in the Industrial Courts. The powers of the Court and Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act were extensive and they could grant such relief as was appropriate. The Court held that the Forums created under the I.D. Act and other Labour Laws could not be by passed and the remedy and has to be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment was passed on 27.7.2004. It appears that confronted with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, petitioners have chosen to take a chance in this Court.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner fails to disclose a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court to enable entertainment of the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum or Competent Court of jurisdiction, if so advised.