AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was proper.
Heard Mr. A.D. Dangore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondents.
This application is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, contending that as this Court has become functus officio, this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the interim relief granted by this Court while allowing the petitioner to withdraw the writ 1-wp2270-2020.odt petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum. She relies upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited and others Vrs. Ram Parshotam Mittal and others reported in 2014(13) Supreme Court Cases 646.
In our respectful submissions, the facts in the case of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited and others Vrs. Ram Parshotam Mittal and others (Supra) are different than the facts of the present case, in the sense that there appeared to be no liberty sought for as regards approaching the alternate forum which was granted and whereas, in the present case, such liberty was specifically asked for and was granted by this Court. Besides, while extending interim relief, this Court had noted objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents and duly considered it. Therefore, we do not think that any assistance could be sought by the respondents now from the case of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited and others Vrs. Ram Parshotam Mittal and others (Supra).
The ground taken in this application is that the reference previously made by the applicant/original petitioner was disposed of by the Labour Court, only on the ground that a writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending before this Court and that the applicant/petitioner was not aware of such one line order passed by the Labour Court.
The fact of disposing of a reference application made by the petitioner to the Labour Court, as we see now, has been suppressed by the petitioner. The petitioner rather has made a misleading statement when she averred in paragraph No.12 of the Memo of Petition that she had not moved any other Court prior to filing of this petition and no other proceedings apart from this writ petition were pending before any Court, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The document No.1 filed alongwith this application is of the date of 3rd September 2020 and it shows that at the request of the petitioner that reference to A to Z has been made on that date through her Union. This date is prior to filing of the original petition, being Writ Petition No.2270 of 2020. This petition was filed by the petitioner on 11.09.2020. Even during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner did not care to inform this Court about the representation/reference application moved by her through her Union. Such conduct of the petitioner, would dis-entitle her to any equitable relief from this 1-wp2270-2020.odt Court.
Even otherwise, we find that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the petitioner by rejection of this application as by the impugned order dated 20th August, 2020, which was the subject matter of the writ petition earlier filed, the petitioner has been only reverted to her original designation as General Majdoor, Category-I which if successfully challenged will only give rise to monetary claim. Now, if the petitioner is under threat of dismissal from service, as is being submitted, it would lead to fresh cause of action and fresh remedy before appropriate forum.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this application.
The application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.