Union of India (UOI) vs Dahyalal Mulshankar Suthar

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—RULE. Learned Counsel Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing for Respondent-workman waives service of rule.

With the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken-up for final disposal forthwith.

The Union of India is aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot dated 19th September 2008 allowing the

Reference (LCR) (Old No. 86/2006 converted into New No. 470/2007) preferred by the Respondent-workman.

It would be expedient to narrate few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. The Respondent-workman was working with the

Union of India in the Shipping Department. His services came to be terminated on 4th October 1983. He challenged his termination by filing

Regular Civil Suit No. 353/1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi. While the suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi,

the Central Administrative Tribunal came into force. Accordingly, Regular Civil Suit No. 353/1983 was transferred to the Central Administrative

Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the Respondent-workman. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal

was assailed by the Respondent-workman in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 12172/1988, which came to be rejected vide order dated 18th

September 1992. After a period of about seven years, in the year 1999, the Respondent-workman once again initiated proceedings before the

Labour Court being LCR No. 245/1999 for the same cause of action, which had already attained finality right upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

However, the Labour Court allowed the reference vide order dated 27th April 2005 in the absence of the Union of India. The order was ex-parte.

The Union of India preferred Misc. Civil Application under Rule 26-A of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. The application was allowed

and the reference was restored to the file of the Labour Court. Fresh orders were passed and once again the workman was ordered to be

reinstated. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is preferred.

I have heard learned Counsels Mr. Mrugen Purohit appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay for the Respondent-

workman.

I am of the view that the order under challenge is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. When the Labour Court passed the order dated 19th

September 2008, it was a second round of litigation. The Presiding Officer ought to have considered the important question of fact that the

Respondent-workman had already challenged his termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal and his challenge failed. His challenge

failed right upto the Supreme Court and once the Supreme Court confirms the termination, there was no question, once again after a period of

seven years, to entertain the same claim on merits. Only on this short point the petition deserves to be allowed.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Upadhyay submits that the petition should not be entertained because there is a delay of

about two years in preferring this petition. The order under challenge is of the year 2008 and the petition is preferred in the year 2010.

I am afraid, it is not possible for me to accept this contention for the simple reason that the order of the Labour Court is wholly without

jurisdiction. The Labour Court could not have taken cognizance of the claim of the Respondent-workman for the second time when this challenge

failed upto the Supreme Court.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot dated 19th September 2008 in LCR

(Old No. 86/2006, New No. 407/2007) is quashed and set-aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to cost.