S N Tiwari vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3280 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C.) No. 593/2008

%                     Date of Decision: 20th August, 2009


# S.N. Tiwari
                                                                 ..... PETITIONER
!                     Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate.

                                       VERSUS

$ Govt of NCT, Delhi & Anr
                                                             .....RESPONDENTS

^                     Through: None.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an award

dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator granting no relief

to him for the alleged termination of his services by the respondent w.e.f.

01.07.2000.

2 The management of the respondent had contested the claim of the

petitioner for reinstatement broadly on two grounds, one that he himself

had abandoned the service of the respondent when he was transferred

from DMRC Project site to the Head Office of the management w.e.f.

02.04.2000 and the second ground on which the claim was contested

was that there was no industrial dispute between the parties as the

petitioner did not make any demand for his reinstatement before

approaching the Conciliation Officer with regard to his alleged

termination. The management of the respondent in its written statement

filed before the Labour Court also took a plea that the petitioner had

failed to join duties despite he was asked to join duties by the

management of the respondent vide its letter dated 24.11.2000. The

petitioner in fact gave a reply to the said letter of the management dated

24.11.2000 and in his reply also, he did not raise a dispute with regard

to his alleged termination and confine his claim only for unpaid salary

during the period he had worked with the respondent.

3 The Labour Court in its impugned award has relied upon a

judgment of the Supreme Court in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation

Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat AIR (1968) SC 529 and also upon

two judgments of this Court, one of Division Bench in Fedders Loyed

Corporation Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and other of Single Bench in

Nagender Sharma Vs. Management of M/s Rajasthan Timbers

Corporation, ILR (2006) 1 Delhi 1030 and on the strength of these three

judgments, it was held that since the petitioner had not made a demand

for his reinstatement prior to filing of claim for his reinstatement before

the Conciliation Officer, industrial dispute between the parties does not

exist.

4 Mr. N.P. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

has contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd's case (Supra) has lost its ground in view of

insertion of Section 2-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of

amendment in the Act w.e.f. 01.12.1965. Learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner has also placed reliance on two judges Bench

decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of

Baroda (1978) 2 SCC 353 to contend that for coming into existence of an

industrial dispute, a written demand by the workman is not a sine qua

non and according to learned counsel, an industrial dispute comes into

existence as soon as the workman approaches the Conciliation Officer

with his grievance against the alleged termination. This argument

advanced on behalf of the petitioner is of no consequence because the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal's case (Supra)

has already been considered by this Court in its earlier judgment in

Nagender Sharma's case (Supra) where the judgment in Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd's case was also considered and after

consideration of those judgments, it was held that unless the workman

serves a demand notice for his reinstatement on the management, the

industrial dispute does not come into existence till that time. The Labour

Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Nagender

Sharma's case in which all judgments including the judgment in Shambhu

Nath Goyal's case have been considered and therefore this Court is of the

opinion that the view taken by the court below in the impugned award by

no means can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this

Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore fails

and is hereby dismissed in limine.

AUGUST 20, 2009                                         S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'