Gopal Singh vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—By the present writ petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the impugned order (Annex-1) dated 23.08.2004 whereby application filed by the workman u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''Act of 1947'') dated 16.12.2002 for giving him the consequential benefits of Rs.20 lacs, has been rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur.

Learned counsels for the parties at bar commonly submit that the issue regarding reference of industrial dispute in question against the alleged illegal termination of the workman itself has already been decided against the workman by this Court while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-employer being SBCWP No.2995/1997 (M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Gopal Singh Sisodia), decided on 23.03.1992. The matter was taken by the workman up-to Hon''ble Supreme Court and his SLP No.171/1993 was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 27.08.1992 vide Annex-R/4 on record. Thereafter in the second round of litigation, again the workman filed writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.5602/2004 (Gopal Singh V. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd.) again seeking reference of his dispute, which writ petition came to be dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 02.04.2007 in the following terms:

I do not find any merit in the contentions so raised. It is not in dispute that the workman was terminated from service on 12.5.1973 and at the first instance he raised industrial dispute on 1.12.1983. The delay in raising the dispute was considered by this Court in earlier writ petition that came to be decided by the judgment dated 23.03.1992. This Court in quite unambiguous terms reached at the conclusion that the delay of 10 years in raising the dispute was unexplained and in normal course such stale matters cannot be referred for their adjudication. The finding given by this Court remained intact up to Supreme Court. Once this issue has been decided by the Court, it was not open for the appropriate government to reconsider the same, therefore, it rightly declined to refer the dispute.

I do not find any merit in this petition for writ, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(Govind Mathur), J.

The aforesaid judgment has become final. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that since the reference of industrial dispute itself has been turned-down finally by this Court, there was no justification of entertaining the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947; and the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same by the impugned order Annex-1 dated 23.08.2004.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon careful perusal of the impugned order and facts as narrated above, this Court is satisfied that there was no occasion for the learned Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur to entertain the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. In the absence of any award in favour of petitioner-workman, there could not be any admitted liability on the part of employer to pay any such dues in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, since the reference of dispute by workman itself was turned-down up to Apex Court of the country, including the two judgments of this Court.

Therefore, the impugned order rejecting his application u/s 33-C(2) of Act of 1947 is found to be unassailable and the present writ petition of the workman is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.