Delhi High Court
Mayur Bandhekar vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment ... on 1 June, 2022
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5661/2022 & CM APPL.16849/2022 (stay)
MAYUR BANDHEKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra with
Mr. Satyarth Sinha, Ms. Prgya Dubey,
Ms. Bibhuti Bhushan and
Ms. Shivalika Mishra, Advocates.
versus
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal with
Mr. Aditya Deshwal, Ms. Rakshita
Goyal and Ms. Mona Dureja,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 01st June, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of writ or any other appropriate directions. By way of the
present writ petition, order dated 25.01.2022, passed by the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of Chief Labour Commissioner
(C), New Delhi CE bearing reference F.No.24(2)/2022-IR whereby the case
of the petitioner has been referred to Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur. Petitioner seeks adjudication of the
same before the Labour Court at New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
2. Plea of the petitioner is that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner exists between him and the Management, i.e., the Additional
Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Nagpur and its
contractor in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule annexed to the
petition.
3. Plea raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner allegedly joined the
services with CGHS, Raipur, Chhattisgarh on 02.12.2017 and since then
allegedly has continuously been working with the said organization till date.
The prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is as follows:-
"I. Pass an order of quashing the order dated 25.01.2022
passed by Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment Office of Chief Labour Commissioner (C) New
Delhi with reference no.F.No. 24(2)/2022-IR to the extent
whereby it refers the case of the Petitioner to CGIT Jabalpur
and further to modify it to the extent that the Industrial
dispute of the petitioner be referred to CGIT New Delhi.
II. Pass an order directing the respondent No. 1 to place
on record the availability of the CGIT's in the State of
Chhattisgarh and if none existent appropriate orders for the
creation of the same may be passed."
4. Respondent has filed the written submissions wherein it has been
stated that as per the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central
Government by Notification dated 14.01.2000 has crafted the jurisdiction of
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur over the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. It has been stated that after the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2000 a new State of Chhattisgarh has been carved out of
the State of Madhya Pradesh on 25.08.2000 vide the Notification dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
14.01.2000, and presently CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur is continuing
to have jurisdiction over Raipur (Chhattisgarh) also.
6. Plea taken by the respondent is that there is no ground for transfer of
the case of the petitioner from CGIT Jabalpur to CGIT Delhi. It has been
stated that the other cases cited by the petitioner are on different facts and
circumstances.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that admittedly CGIT,
Raipur is not in place till present and in view of the Notification dated
14.01.2000, CGIT Jabalpur will have jurisdiction over industrial disputes
arising in Raipur and other places, as mentioned in Notification dated
14.01.2000.
8. Per contra, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon Section 74 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization
Act, 2000 which is as under:-
"74. Jurisdiction of the Commissions, Authorities and Tribunals.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, every Commission, Authority, Tribunal, University,
Board or any other body constituted under a Central Act, State Act
or Provincial Act and having jurisdiction over the existing State of
Madhya Pradesh shall on and from the appointed day continue to
function in the successor State of Madhya Pradesh and also
exercise jurisdiction as existed before the appointed day over the
State of Chhattisgarh for a maximum period of two years from the
appointed day or till such period as is decided by mutual
agreement between the successor States-
(i) to continue such body as a joint body for the successor
States; or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
(ii) to abolish it, on the expiry of that period, for either of the
successor States; or
(iii) to constitute a separate commission, Authority, Tribunal,
University, Board or any other body, as the case may be,
for the State of Chhattisgarh, whichever is earlier.
(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, in case
such body is abolished under clause (ii) of sub- section (1), by any
employee of such body against the termination of his appointment
or for the enforcement of any service conditions or for securing
absorption in alternative public employment against the Central
Government or any of the successor States.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or
Tribunal or contract or agreement, any Chairman or member of
any body abolished under clause (ii) of sub- section (1) shall not
be entitled to any compensation for the unexpired period of his
tenure.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or any law
for the time being in force, the Central Government shall, in
accordance with any mutual agreement between the successor
States or if there is no such agreement, after consultation with the
Governments of the successor States, issue directions for the
resolution of any matter relating to any body referred to in sub-
section (1) and falling within the jurisdiction of any of the
successor States within any period referred to in sub- section (1)."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 74
of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 even Notification dated
14.01.2000 will cease to exist and CGIT Jabalpur will have no jurisdiction
over Raipur.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similarly
placed cases, matters have been referred to CGIT Delhi. A reference has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
been made to the order of CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I in ID No.66/2014,
whereby, a similar matter was referred to CGIT, Delhi. In the said case one
of the petitioners was from UP and the matter was referred to CGIT Delhi.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the facts in ID
No.66/2014 are distinguishable and this case cannot be taken as a precedent.
12. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. It is an admitted case that in IP No.66/2014, Industrial
Disputes were raised in Delhi, whereas in the present case, admittedly the
industrial disputes were raised in Raipur. It is also an admitted case that at
present there is no CGIT in Raipur.
13. Plea of the petitioner is that either his case may be transferred to Delhi
or CGIT may be created in Raipur. Objections of the respondents are that if
such an order is passed by this Court for transfer of a case from CGIT
Jabalpur to CGIT Delhi, it will be taken as a precedent and may open a
floodgate of such kind of litigation before the Courts.
14. In the present case, no peculiar circumstances have been shown to the
Court for transfer of the petitioner's case from CGIT Raipur to Delhi.
However, this Court is inclined to agree with the submission of the
petitioner that the Government should have created CGIT at Raipur for the
purpose of convenience of labour. This Court also agrees with the
submission of the petitioner that workmen are poor persons and it is very
difficult for them to go from Raipur to Jabalpur to contest their cases.
Industrial Dispute Act is a welfare legislation and the purpose of the
enactment is to provide speedy and cost saving mechanism to the workmen
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
for redressal of their grievances.
15. This Court however considers that it is a policy matter and it is for the
Central Government to decide about the creation of the CGIT. This Court is
restraining itself to pass any order in this regard but considers it appropriate
to send this writ petition to Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment
with a request to consider this case and take an appropriate decision
expeditiously regarding creation of CGIT at Raipur. However, in the
absence of any peculiar circumstances, this Court does not find any ground
for transfer of the case of the petitioner from Raipur to Delhi.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may face
the limitation bar in filing the statement of claim before CGIT - Jabalpur.
Let the statement of claim be filed within four weeks.
17. With these observations, the petition along with pending application
stands dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JUNE 1, 2022/st
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAJ BALA
Signing
