Devi Dayal vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University Of Horticulture And Forestry And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent-University may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement w.e.f. due date along with all consequential service benefits in the interest of justice and in future also.

(B) That in alternative, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent to confer work charge status w.e.f. due date in favour of the petitioner along with interest.”

The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Mess Helper by the respondent-University, in the year 2007. His services were terminated in the year 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, as submitted by his counsel, raised an Industrial dispute, in the year 2015. The Government refused to refer the same to the learned Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP no. 1424 of 2019, titled Devi Dayal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., before this court. The writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court on

07.2019 (Annexure P-2), in the following terms:-

“6. It is recorded in the impugned order that after the conciliation, no settlement was reached under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Once it is not disputed that the provisions of the Act would apply, it may not be open to the Government to nonsuit a worker only on the ground of delay and laches.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Government is directed to make a Reference of the dispute. It shall include a question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any relief and if so with reference to delay and laches on his part.”

Thereafter, a Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court. However, the petitioner, rather than pursuing the Reference so made, withdrew the same in terms of an Annexure P-3, on 13. 09.2023. The order passed by the learned Labour Court on 13. 09.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-

“The petitioner vide separate statement stated that he do not want to continue the present case and statement of petitioner placed on record.

In view of the statement of the petitioner the case is dismissed as withdrawn Therefore, nothing survive in the present reference petition which is answered accordingly Let a copy of this order be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.”

Thereafter, the petitioner, filed CWP No. 2573 of 2024 before this Court, titled Devi Dayal Vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, assailing the order passed by the learned Labour Court on 13.09.2023. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), in the following terms:-

“Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had himself withdrawn the reference petition before the learned Labour Court, this Court fails to understand as to how the writ petition against the said order is maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition being misconceived, is dismissed in limini. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

Now, by way of this writ petition, the petitioner has again approached the Court and he has made the above-mentioned prayers therein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that persons similarly situated like the petitioner, have been re-engaged by the Authorities after the adjudication of their labour disputes, the present writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner along-with other consequential benefits, as prayed in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent-University has submitted that this petition is not maintainable for the reason that when the petitioner himself withdrew the reference that was made by the appropriate Government on the Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, filing of this writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law. He submitted that nothing prevented the petitioner from pursuing the Industrial dispute which stood raised by the him and which was referred for adjudication by way of reference by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court.

Having heard Learned counsel for the parties and having produced the petition as well as documents appended therewith, this Court concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the present writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law.

The petitioner was disengaged in the year 2011. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Industrial dispute itself was raised by him in the year 2015. When the appropriate Government refused to refer the matter to the learned Labour Court, the petitioner approached this Court and in terms of an Annexure P-1, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the Government to make a reference of the dispute. Thereafter, when the reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court, the petitioner rather than pursuing the issue, withdrew the same without any liberty. In the light of said development and further in light of the fact that the challenge to be said withdrawal stood rejected by this Court in terms of Annexure P-4, this writ petition is neither maintainable nor the relief paid for by the petitioner can be granted to him.

In the light of the withdrawal of the reference, the right of the petitioner to agitate the issue stood closed and now he cannot approach the Court on the ground that because other persons have been granted relief, therefore, he is also entitled for the relief.

Persons similarly situated like the petitioner, agitated the act of the respondents and took the claims etc. or Industrial disputes raised by them, to their logical conclusion, whereas the petitioner rather than taking the Industrial dispute to its logical conclusion, withdrew it in terms of order dated 13. 09.2023.

Therefore, as this Court is satisfied that this writ petition is not maintainable and further it is nothing but abuse of the process of law, the same is dismissed with token cost of Rs. 1000/-. The cost will be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund and for the purpose of the compliance of this part of the judgment, list on 10.03.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.