Shri Vritra Kumar vs Central Bank Of India And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2498 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) No. 9526/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 06 July, 2009


# Shri Vritra Kumar
                                                             ..... Petitioner
!            Through:     Mr. B. B. Jain, Advocate

$ Central Bank of India & Ors.
                                                          .....Respondents

^            Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate

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 was appointed as a Peon in the Central Bank of India

(respondent herein) on 01.06.1989. While working as Peon, he was

promoted to the post of Clerk in the Bank on 15.01.1990 and was placed

on probation for six months. While he was on probation, he absented

from duty. However, his probation was extended by 76 days from

15.07.1990. He was advised to submit medical certificate but he did not

do so. He was given memo dated 20.10.1990 by the Bank. The petitioner

again absented unauthorizedly from duty w.e.f. 05.02.1992. The

respondent bank communicated to him vide memo dated 13.08.1998 (at

page 18 of the paper book) that he is deemed to have been voluntarily

retired from service of the respondent bank w.e.f 21.05.1993. The

petitioner did not take any remedial measure even after receipt of memo

dated 13.08.1998 from the respondent bank stating that he is deemed to

have been voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent bank

w.e.f. 21.05.1993. He raised an industrial dispute for the first time after

more than 5 years of memo dated 13.08.1998 about his alleged

termination from the service of the respondent bank by filing an

application before the Labour Commissioner. Conciliation proceedings

were done by the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report to

the concerned authorities on 12.02.2004 with a copy thereof to the

petitioner also. The concerned authorities of the Government after taking

into account the failure report of the Conciliation Officer and other

relevant material were of the view that there was no existing dispute that

was required to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and

therefore vide impugned order dated 31.05.2004 communicated to the

petitioner that there was no existing dispute which was required to be

referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed a review

against the order dated 31.05.2004 and the said review application was

also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India on the same ground that there was no

existing referable dispute. The petitioner, thereafter, slept over the

matter and did not take any remedial measure.

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition after about 18 years of his

absenting from the respondent bank from duty which he absented w.e.f.

05.02.1992 and now seeks a writ of mandamus to the appropriate

Government for referring the dispute relating to his alleged termination

for adjudication to the Labour Court.

3 On going through the impugned orders dated 31.05.2004 and

11.10.2006 referred above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the

said orders which require interference by this Court in exercise of its

discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

4 In Prem Singh Vs. Labour Commissioner, Punjab,

Chandigarh & Ors (1994) 1 LLN 538, it was held by the Division

Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that reference can be declined

by the appropriate Government on the ground of delay having regard to

the facts of each case and same cannot be assailed on the ground that it

is for the Labour Court to mould the relief. The Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing

Process Service Society (1996) 6 SCC 82 and Gurmail Singh Vs.

Principal Government Colleged of Eduction 2000 (84) FIR 920 on

which reliance is placed by the petitioner's counsel are not applicable to

the facts of this case because in both the judgments the delinquent

employee had justified the delay and they both relate to belated disputes

referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour

Court. These are not the cases where the appropriate Government had

refused to refer the dispute for adjudication as is the case in the present

writ petition.

5 In Ministry of Textile Vs. Murari Lal Gupta & Anr JT 2008 (4)

SC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 4 of the said

judgment:-

" Undisputedly the writ petition was filed after about five years. The High Court directed reconsideration of the matter and did not in fact direct reference to be made. Except in certain unexceptional cases courts should not direct reference to be made. It is within the domain of the Government to decide as to in which case reference is to be made and in which case reference is not to be done. The reference was apparently made on the ground that the High Court had directed a reference to be made. That was not factually correct. Be that as it may, writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court. But the fact that the project has already been closed cannot be lost sight of. Also relevant is the belated filing of the writ petition."

6 In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Murari Lal Gupta's case (Supra), I am of the view that the appropriate

Government was fully justified in declining to refer the alleged dispute

raised by the petitioner for adjudication of the Labour Court.

7 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

July 06, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL
a                                                     [JUDGE]