Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Khanna vs Chandigarh Administration, ... on 7 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)IILLJ1433P&H
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner claims that his services were illegally terminated by the respondent-Company vide order dated March 14, 1994. On June 8, 1995 the petitioner served a notice of demand. The matter was considered by the appropriate Government. The petitioner's request for reference to the Labour Court was declined vide order dated June 25, 1998. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Government has refused to make a reference to the Labour Court on the ground that the workman was asked "to join duty at Nangal even during conciliation but the workman rather imposed a pre-condition of wages for the intervening period." It was further observed that the Management had "taken the stand that they have not terminated the services of the workman and are still prepared to take the worker on duty ................" Thus, it was found that no case was made out to hold that there was an existing dispute. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the observations, as made in this order, are factually incorrect.
4. It is no doubt true that the Government cannot adjudicate. It has normally to see if there is an industrial dispute. However, in the present case, there are peculiar circumstances. It is claimed by the employer that it has not terminated the services of the petitioner. In fact, he is not wanting to work as he is already engaged in business. Still further, when the matter was listed before this Bench on March 24, 1999, learned counsel for the second respondent had made a statement that the petitioner was actually working in the Stock Exchange. He was only harassing the employer "with the oblique objective of earning the arrears of salary without doing any work." In these circumstances, it was stated by the learned counsel that if, the petitioner was really interested in the job, he may report for duty immediately and that he would be given posting at the Nangal Office of the respondent-Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner had undertaken that the petitioner would report for duty within one week. The case was, accordingly, adjourned to April 6, 1999. When the case was taken up, it was pointed out by : Mr. Nehra that the petitioner had submitted joining report on March 29, 1999. However, after doing work for that date, he did not attend to his duties. Photostat copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner is taken on record, as Mark 'A'.
5. In view of the facts as pointed out by the counsel, we had sent for the petitioner and kept the matter for today. The petitioner is present. We have heard him. He admits that he is working with his father in the Northern India Stock Exchange at Chandigarh. He has further stated that his father is a member of the Exchange.
6. On perusal of the file and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the petitioner is really not interested in the job and that he is actually wanting to grab the arrears of salary on one pretext or the other. As far back as September 6, 1995 the second respondent had filed a detailed reply to the petitioner's demand notice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In this reply it had been inter alia, pointed out that the petitioner had raised the demand after more than one and quarter years, as he was really not interested in the job. In fact, "he is gainfully employed in his exchange business. Even otherwise, a qualified person, holding Master's Degree in Commerce, cannot remain unemployed at a place like Chandigarh. "Thus, it was claimed that the petitioner's demand should be rejected. It has not been shown that any of these averments, as made on behalf of the respondents is wrong. In any event, even when the petitioner was given an opportunity to join duty in March 1999, he submitted the joining report "for a single day." This single act puts the matter beyond any shadow of doubt about the real intention of the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner is himself not attending to his duties. He is not interested in the job. He wants to make money out of the case.
7. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference in the exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are meant to help the needy. These are not to be invoked to help a person who is greedy. We are satisfied that the petitioner belongs to the latter category and is wanting to make money out of the Management, without doing any work. We cannot help him in doing so.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit it in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.