AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2011 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region,
Dehradun and also the order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner on review application of the petitioner, on 09.09.2011.
By the order dated 23.03.2011, Deputy Labour Commissioner has refused to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to the Labour
Court on the ground that the case is that of a transfer and not termination of services.
It is an admitted position that M/s Kanthwal Services has a contract for providing house-keeping and sanitation services to Himalayan Institute of
Hospital Trust, Jollygrant, Rishikesh Dehradun/respondent no. 3. Vide letter dated 24.05.2010, issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Kanthwal
Services, petitioner was informed that due to reduction in workforce by Himalayan Hospital, petitioner has been relieved from the said hospital,
therefore, he was asked to report at the Haridwar branch of Kanthwal Services, within three days for getting letter of engagement in respect of some
other establishment.
Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute against the said letter dated 24.05.2010 issued by M/s Kanthwal Services, by making an application dated
10.11.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
The Deputy Labour Commissioner after considering all relevant aspects of the matter has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to the labour
Court by holding that this is not a case of termination of service, but, simply that of transfer of an employee from one establishment to another.
The order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner on 23.03.2011 has been put to challenge in this writ petition.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The letter issued by M/s Kanthwal
Services on 24.05.2010 reveals that Himalayan Institute of Hospital Trust had reduced the number of workforce and accordingly petitioner was
informed that he can be engaged in some other establishment within the jurisdiction of Haridwar office of M/s Kanthwal Services and petitioner was
asked to report at the Haridwar office within three days.
Petitioner should have reported at the Haridwar office in terms of the letter dated 24.05.10 and if, even after reporting there, letter of engagement
was not issued in his favour, then only he could have raised an industrial dispute alleging that letter dated 24.05.2010 amounts to termination of service.
Since petitioner did not report for duties at Haridwar office and straightaway rushed to Deputy Labour Commissioner, therefore, the view taken by
Deputy Labour Commissioner cannot be faulted. Thus, application seeking review of the order dated 23.03.2011 was also rightly rejected.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed.