Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2256/2021 on 8 March, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2256 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Advocate, with
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for the
respondent No.4.
The petitioner in the present writ petition,
which is a Trade Union of the employees of the
respondent No.4, the petitioners in the present
writ petition had sought for the following relief:-
(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing/setting aside the
impugned order dated 01.09.2021
(Annexure No.10 to the petition) issued by
respondent No.4 and declare the same
inoperative and illegal inasmuch the same
has been passed in utter violation of
Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes
Act read with Section 6W of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as
other provisions of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
(b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent
No.4 not to close the Establishment in
question (HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., A
company registered under the Companies
Act, having its Registered Office at 24,
Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road,
Adugodi, Bangalore, having its Industrial
Establishment at Plot no.9-11A and 35-
37A, SIDCUL Pantnagar, Udham Singh
Nagar) w.e.f. 31.10.2021 and permit the
members of the petitioners Union to work
at the Establishment in question with
continuity in service.
(c) Issue any other order, direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts of the case.
(d) Award cost of the present writ petition to
the petitioner."
During the pendency of the writ petition as
would be apparent from the annexure No.1, to the
supplementary affidavit, that a reference order of
16.02.2022, has already been passed under
Section 4K of UPID Act, and the dispute has
been referred to be decided by the competent
Industrial Tribunal. In view of the reference
order, in fact the question which was sought to be
agitated by the petitioners in the writ petition, at
this stage, no more survives because all the
questions are now left to be answered by the
Labour Court while answering to the reference
which has made before it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had
sought an accommodation to the extent that a
direction may be issued to the Labour Court to
decide the reference proceedings itself
expeditiously.
This direction sought by the petitioner
seeking a direction for the Labour Court for an
expeditious disposal, has been vehemently
opposed by the respondent Counsel Mr. Sarthak
Raizada, on the ground that in view of the
judgment as reported in 2009 (1) SCC 8,
"M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Commissioner of
Commercial Tax & others", which was arising
out of the judgment of the Division Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has dealt with, and had laid down the
stipulations, that the exercise of powers by the
High Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, may not be
misconstrued and intermingled with one another,
as if it's the ambit of same exercise of powers,
and what he tries to argue is in the light of the
observations made in paragraph No.25, in the
judgment of Surya Dev Rai, as reported in
2003 (6) SCC 675, wherein, the writ Courts
which are ceased with the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should
refrain itself issuing from any directions to the
courts which are under the supervisory
jurisdiction, as the directions given to decide the
matter would fall to be within the ambit of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This contention of the learned counsel for
the respondent is not being accepted by this
Court for the reason being that (1) the reference
of paragraph No.25, as extracted in paragraph
No.14, of the judgment is in the light of the
factual backdrop of the issue involved in Surya
Dev Rai judgment, which had not been placed
before this Court (2) When the writ courts
exercises its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, it is not divested with its
right to issue a direction to ensure an expeditious
disposal of the proceedings, which rather aims to
achieve an expeditious adjudication of the
controversy inter se between the parties, and it
may not be prolonged at the behest of either of
the parties to the proceedings.
In that eventuality, while closing this writ
petition on the ground, that since now the
reference has already been made and the matter is
now ceased with the Labour Court, the writ
petition is being dismissed as having rendered
infructuous, with the request to the Labour Court
to decide the reference proceedings as
expeditiously as possible.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
08.03.2022
NR/
