Delhi High Court
Sh. Gurdeep Singh vs President, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara ... on 23 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd May, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 369/2011
% SH. GURDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.N. Sharma & Mr. D.D. Joshi,
Advocates.
Versus
PRESIDENT, DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.7317/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM No.7318/2011 (for condonation of 28 days delay in filing the
annexures)
For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. The delay in filing
the annexures is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.369/2011
1. The matter has been listed as per office note dated 13 th May, 2011.
2. The writ petition impugns the order dated 13 th December, 2001 of
the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner. The writ petition
has been preferred after more than 10 years of the order impugned. In fact,
the petitioner immediately after the order, on 14th December, 2001 itself
instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge,
Delhi to restrain the respondent from so terminating his services. The
petitioner however claims to have withdrawn the said suit on 22nd
February, 2002. The petitioner thereafter averring that the order of his
termination was in violation of the interim order for maintenance of status
quo in a writ petition/writ appeal relating to disputes as to election to the
office bearers of the respondent, filed Cont.Case(C) No.11/2002. The said
contempt petition was finally dismissed vide order dated 30 th August,
2010. However that order records that the counsel for the respondent had
stated that in case the petitioner instituted any proceedings, the respondent
will not raise the plea of limitation. The counsel for the petitioner
contends that in view of the said statement of the respondent, the delay of
10 years in challenging the order of termination should not come in the
way of this challenge.
3. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner is invited to Section 32 of
the Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971 under which the respondent has been
constituted and which inter alia provides:
"32. The Court of the District Judge in Delhi shall also have
jurisdiction in respect of the following matters namely:-
(c) Petitions regarding complaints, irregularities, breach of
trust, mismanagement in any Gurdwara, educational or other
institutions against any member, office-bearer or officer or
other employee of the Committee.
(d) Petitions arising out of any type of disputes between the
Committee and its employees including past employees."
4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how, in
face of the aforesaid provision making the alternative remedy available
before the District Judge, the present writ petition would lie.
5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had earlier
approached the District Court but upon objection being taken by the
respondent as to the jurisdiction of the District Court, the petitioner had
approached this Court by way of Contempt Petition and now by way of
this writ petition. On being asked to show as to where the respondent had
taken objection to the jurisdiction of the District Court, the counsel for the
petitioner has invited attention to pages 213 and 214 of paper book
containing an application dated 7th January, 2002 filed by the respondent in
the civil suit aforesaid filed by the petitioner. However a perusal of the
said application shows that the objection taken by the respondent also was
of Section 32 of the Act only and not of the petitioner being required to
avail of the writ remedy. The petitioner, inspite of being informed as far
back as on 7th January, 2002 of the remedy under Section 32 of the Act,
chose to pursue the wrong remedies and cannot now be heard to raise the
plea of having been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has
himself to blame for approaching the wrong fora. In this regard it may also
be mentioned that Section 33(1) of the Gurudwaras Act provides for a
statutory appeal to this Court from the orders of the District Judge made in
exercise of powers under Section 32 supra. The Gurudwaras Act having
provided a complete machinery for adjudication of the disputes of the
respondent with its employees including past employees, it is the
established principle of law that the writ remedy would ordinarily not be
available.
6. Even otherwise, the matter appears to be such which would require
examination and cross-examination of witnesses and which cannot be
conveniently done in writ jurisdiction. On the contrary, in exercise of
powers under Section 32 of the Gurudwaras Act, the District Judge would
be entitled to record the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
The services of the petitioner were terminated for the reason of the
petitioner having misappropriated a sum of approximately `33,000/- while
working in the respondent Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee.
The order further records that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before
the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner challenges all the said facts and which
as aforesaid would require recording of evidence.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that two others also
terminated along with him have since been taken back by the respondent.
The said argument appears to have been raised before the Contempt Court
also as is apparent from the order dated 22 nd March, 2007 in Contempt
Case No.11/2002. Even the said aspect requires enquiry as to whether the
petitioner was/is similarly placed as the other two persons who are stated
to have been taken back.
8. The counsel for the respondent though not present today has in some
other cases coming up before this Court also informed that the respondent
has constituted an Appellate Authority comprising of Justice T.S. Doabia
to hear the grievances of the employees. The petitioner is informed of the
same also so as to, if finds the same to be suitable/appropriate remedy,
avail of the same.
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty however to
the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy available in law.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 23, 2011
bs
