Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hindustan Zink Ltd., & Anr vs Ram Lal Khatik & Ors on 6 February, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Writ Review No. 7 / 2017
1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,, Zinc Smelter, Debari (vedanta), Udaipur
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
2. General Manager, Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,, Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ram Lal Khatik S/o Lalu Ram,, R/o B-13, Adarsh Nagar, Hiran
Magari, Sector-4, Udaipur (raj.)
2. Union of India Through Secretary,, Ministry of Heavy Industries
and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, Block-
14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
3. Learned Labour Court,, Udaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharyan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Lal Khatik - respondent in person.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 06/02/2017 This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a review of the order dated 11.9.2015 passed by this Court.
When S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5894/2015 : Ram Lal Khatik v. Union of India & Ors., came up before this Court for admission, the same was decided, inter alia, noticing that similar nature dispute was pending before the Labour Court, Udaipur and in view thereof, it was observed as under:
"In view of the fact that a direction has already been issued by this Court in the case of Kedar Das Joshi (supra) and pursuant thereto an industrial dispute raising exactly the same issue as raised in the present writ petition is pending adjudication (2 of 3) [WRW-7/2017] before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The petitioner would be free to approach the tribunal in the pending matter and seek appropriate relief therein as per law and/or would be governed by the adjudication made by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur in the pending matter.
Learned counsel submits that though the matter is pending since long, the same has not been decided. It appears that the statements of claim has been filed only on 03.11.2014, therefore, it cannot be said that much time has been taken by the Tribunal in deciding the dispute, however, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the tribunal and request for early disposal of the proceedings.
With the above observations, no interference is called for in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, disposed of."
The review petition was filed, inter alia, with the submissions that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner in the writ petition has filed direct application before the Tribunal seeking relief as claimed in the pending adjudication and the Tribunal has issued the notices to the petitioner.
Submissions were made that the respondent was not entitled under law and under the orders passed by this Court to approach the Tribunal in his individual capacity by way of filing application/statement of claim and, therefore, the order passed by this Court requires to be reviewed.
On notices being issued, respondent No. 1 has appeared personally. On 25.1.2017, it was submitted by the respondent that on account of advice received, he filed the application/statement of claim before the Labour Court, Udaipur and that he shall withdraw the proceedings and report the same before this Court (3 of 3) [WRW-7/2017] on the next date.
Today, a certified copy of the application filed by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, has been produced seeking withdrawal of the claim filed by the respondent.
Filing of the claim by the respondent before the Tribunal was obviously not envisaged by order of this Court dated 11.9.2015 and the sum and substance of the order passed by this Court essentially pertained to the pending matter before the Tribunal likely to govern the case of the petitioner.
On submission of learned counsel for the parties, a look at the statement of claim regarding which the adjudication is pending before the Tribunal, indicates that dispute has been raised pertaining to the office memorandum issued by the petitioner, whereby, the age of retirement has been lowered from 60 to 58 and in view thereof, the adjudication by the Labour Court/Tribunal would governed the case of the respondent No.1 herein.
In view thereof and in view of the fact that respondent No.1 has already withdrawn his application/statement of claim from the Tribunal, no further directions need be issued in the present review petition.
The review petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit-13