Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Dhaker vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd on 1 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 109/2021 Vijay Dhaker S/o Shri Balu Lal Dhaker, Aged About 36 Years, Type-D, 66/4, Anumala Township, Taluka-Vyara, District Tapi (Gujarat) - 394651.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., (Npcil) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Nabhikiya Urja Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094.
2. The Director, Human Resources (Hr), Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. (Npcil) Nabhikiya Urja Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094.
3. The Site Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit-1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. (Npcil), Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site, P.o. Anushakti, Via Kota.
4. The Head, Human Resources (Hr), Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit-1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. (Npcil), Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Stie, P.o.- Anushakti, Via- Kota.
5. The Chairperson, Internal Complaints Committee, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit-1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. (Npcil), Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site, P.o. Anushakti, Via- Kota - 323303.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Saluja
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/07/2022
1. By way of instant review application the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 03.11.2020.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2022 at 08:44:15 PM)
(2 of 3) [WRW-109/2021]
2. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced host of arguments, which in the opinion of this Court, are outside the purview of the review jurisdiction.
3. When the Court observed that it is an appeal in the guise of review, Mr. Saluja contended that in view of the admission given by the counsel (earlier counsel) noticed in para No.10 of the order, perhaps his appeal would not be entertained.
4. According to this Court what has been noticed in para No.10 of the order under consideration cannot be construed to be an admission of the counsel; it is rather an observation of the Court that the inquiry in question is not alleged to be without jurisdiction.
5. The expression used in para No.10 of the order under consideration is only an indication of the fact that the Inquiry Officer had the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. Mr. Saluja's contention that for violation of principles of natural justice duly incorporated in the statutory provisions, namely, under Sections 11 and 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the inquiry becomes non-est or without jurisdiction is another fact of claiming the order to be without jurisdiction.
6. The Court's observation is/was in light of the position that the respondents had the power to initiate enquiry.
7. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed.
8. The petitioner shall be free to raise all grounds before the competent authority or in an appeal, if he so chooses to file. (Downloaded on 02/07/2022 at 08:44:15 PM)
(3 of 3) [WRW-109/2021]
9. It may be observed that the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the present review petition that was filed in October, 2021 and was not reported to be time barred.
10. The stay petitions also stand dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 104-pooja/-
(Downloaded on 02/07/2022 at 08:44:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)