AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is nothing short of frivolous, cantankerous, luxury litigation by an employee of the second respondent-Bharat Earth Movers Limited who is working as Master Skilled Technician in the Organization, but is more keen on going around courts, Tribunals, Labour Welfare Officers, Conciliation Officers, claiming that certain service benefits such as medical facilities and incentives, education facilities to his children are not extended and though he has made a demand and representation, that has been denied by the Management and the conciliation in this regard having been failed, the Central Government has not made a reference on the dispute which is left unresolved etc. This is second round of writ litigation before this court by the petitioner and it is based on the observations made by this court while disposing of earlier writ petition No. 18053/2006 dated 29.01.2008 and the order reading as under:
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of penalty dated: Nil as found at Annexure-D to the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is a workman. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty as found at Annexure-D, he has to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of penalty is liable to be rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise dispute before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Further, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the educational facilities to his children and family members. In this regard, the petitioner gave representations as found at Annexure-K and L to the writ petition in the month of August 2006 and October 2006. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if they are directed to consider the petitioner''s representations as found at Annexure-K and L in accordance with law and as expeditiously as, possible and to extend the educational and medical benefits to the children and family members of the petitioner if they are entitled under law.
With the above observation, the writ petition is hereby rejected.
It is the version of the petitioner who is appearing in person that in respect of his grievance relating to imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment, though the matter is already referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, in respect of other grievance, namely, not extending medical and educational facilities, the Management having not responded positively to his representations, the matter having taken before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer having submitted a failure report to the Central Government, nevertheless, the Central Government has not made a reference of the dispute and therefore the present writ petition seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to the Central Government to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.
Petitioner has also sought for quashing the reply dated 13.08.2010 [copy at Annexure-F] elicited by the petitioner by making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Under the letter addressed to the petitioner, the Under Secretary to Government of India had informed the petitioner that while reference has already been made, insofar as his claim for payment of a sum of Rs. 9,001/- towards certain medical and educational benefits, he can raise a separate dispute etc.
This is sought to be quashed by the petitioner on the premise that he has already raised a dispute. Petitioner has already raised two disputes and only one is referred and the other is required to be referred.
Notice had been issued to the respondents. Second respondent-Management is represented by Sri. Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel and has also filed statement of objections.
Submission of Sri. Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel for the second respondent is that the petitioner can either file an application u/s 33C[2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ''the Act''] if he is so advised, but there is no need for referring the matter to the Tribunal as though it is a dispute for the reason that the Management had in fact apprised the petitioner as per its earlier reply dated 19.05.2008 indicating that facilities as sought has already been extended etc.
Petitioner would contend that he feels discriminated by the conduct of the respondents; that whereas other employees are extended similar benefit and he is only deprived of the benefits.
It is open to the petitioner either to raise a separate dispute as indicated in the response or to take his chances seeking for relief under the Act. It is not necessary for this court to keep issuing directions and examine causes time and again, particularly, in the wake of the order already passed in the earlier writ petition No. 18053/2006. This writ petition is dismissed leaving open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies elsewhere, in accordance with law.