Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sushil Kumar Tayagi vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 September, 2012
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur ******** O R D E R SB Civil Review Petition No.40/11 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9269/2010 Date Of Order :: 18.09.2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. BL Awasthi, for petitioner. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, for respondent.
Instant review petition has been filed for recalling/reviewing order of the Court dt. 21.7.2010, however that came to be assailed by filing special appeal and the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal vide order dt. 10.1.2011 granted liberty to file review application and only thereafter instant review petition came to be filed.
As it reveals from the record that the petitioner workman initially filed application before the Conciliation Officer and after the failure report being submitted, the appropriate government also declined to make reference U/s 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act,1947). However, this Court after taking note of the material which came on record was also not inclined to interfere and the writ petition was dismissed vide order dt. 21.7.2010, of which review is being sought.
Counsel for review petitioner submits that after the amendment being made in section 2A of the Act, 1947, the petitioner filed fresh application for making reference regarding the industrial dispute, along with which certain documents were enclosed and since the appropriate government fail to make a reference within the stipulated time he filed his claim petition before the Tribunal and after notices were issued reply has been filed and one of the objections raised by the respondent is that earlier when the appropriate government declined to make a reference the petitioner workmen approached this Court by filing CWP No.9269/10 and that came to be dismissed and the subsequent claim petition for the self same grievance filed by him is not maintainable.
Counsel for review petitioner submits that order of this Court in writ petition at least may not come in his way which may deprive the petitioner of his rights available to him under the law.
Counsel for respondent submits that it will be open for the learned Tribunal to examine & decide the objection raised in accordance with law.
This Court after taking note of submissions made considers it appropriate to dispose of the instant review petition with the observation that the learned Tribunal may decide the objection raised by the respondent in the pending proceedings independently in accordance with law without being influenced by the order of this Court dt. 21.7.2010 and in these terms the review petition stands disposed of.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
DSR "All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S.