Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/988/2012 on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 988 of 2012
BETWEEN:
Sunil Kumar Sharma. .....Petitioner
(There is no representation for the petitioner)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondents
(By Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent no. 3 & Mr. Jitendra
Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no. 4. )
JUDGMENT
By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has challenged the order dated 23.03.2011 passed
by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region,
Dehradun and also the order passed by Deputy
Labour Commissioner on review application of the
petitioner, on 09.09.2011.
2. By the order dated 23.03.2011, Deputy
Labour Commissioner has refused to refer the
dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to
the Labour Court on the ground that the case is
that of a transfer and not termination of services.
3. It is an admitted position that M/s
Kanthwal Services has a contract for providing
house-keeping and sanitation services to
Himalayan Institute of Hospital Trust, Jollygrant,
Rishikesh Dehradun/respondent no. 3. Vide letter
dated 24.05.2010, issued by the authorized
signatory of M/s Kanthwal Services, petitioner was
informed that due to reduction in workforce by
Himalayan Hospital, petitioner has been relieved
from the said hospital, therefore, he was asked to
report at the Haridwar branch of Kanthwal
Services, within three days for getting letter of
engagement in respect of some other
establishment.
4. Petitioner had raised an industrial
dispute against the said letter dated 24.05.2010
issued by M/s Kanthwal Services, by making an
application dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-4 to the
writ petition).
5. The Deputy Labour Commissioner after
considering all relevant aspects of the matter has
refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to the
labour Court by holding that this is not a case of
termination of service, but, simply that of transfer
of an employee from one establishment to
another.
6. The order passed by Deputy Labour
Commissioner on 23.03.2011 has been put to
challenge in this writ petition.
7. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the matter. The letter
issued by M/s Kanthwal Services on 24.05.2010
reveals that Himalayan Institute of Hospital Trust
had reduced the number of workforce and
accordingly petitioner was informed that he can be
engaged in some other establishment within the
jurisdiction of Haridwar office of M/s Kanthwal
Services and petitioner was asked to report at the
Haridwar office within three days.
8. Petitioner should have reported at the
Haridwar office in terms of the letter dated
24.05.10 and if, even after reporting there, letter
of engagement was not issued in his favour, then
only he could have raised an industrial dispute
alleging that letter dated 24.05.2010 amounts to
termination of service.
9. Since petitioner did not report for duties
at Haridwar office and straightaway rushed to
Deputy Labour Commissioner, therefore, the view
taken by Deputy Labour Commissioner cannot be
faulted. Thus, application seeking review of the
order dated 23.03.2011 was also rightly rejected.
10. In such view of the matter, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere in the matter.
11. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
