Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ami Lal And Others vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And ... on 7 September, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.15410 of 2012
Date of decision: 7th September, 2012
Ami Lal and others
Petitioners
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Devi Dayal Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing their retrenchment with effect from 24th May, 1984 without making any payment of retrenchment compensation and after termination without offering them re-employment and allowing their juniors to continue in service which is allegedly in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners were retrenched from service with effect from 24th May, 1984 in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act and the persons with inferior rights were subsequently appointed as daily-wage workers.
Admittedly, the petitioners had filed CWP No.6680 of 1990 on the basis of the aforesaid facts seeking a direction for reinstatement into service alleging their preferential right of appointment under the provisions of Section 25H of the Act with effect from the date when the persons, who Civil Writ Petition No.15410 of 2012 2 had joined subsequently, were reinstated into service. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as follows:
"5. In the absence of clear details of persons, who had been employed subsequently and by the non-impleadment of persons, who are bound to be effected by any direction for re- employment without impleading them, I allow the petitioners no relief in these writ petitions. I would, however, re-affirm the principle enunciated in Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and direct that the successor in office relating to the unit at Ambala to prepare a list of all daily rated workers wherever rules permit to have the particular cadre of employees as daily rated workers and if any occasion falls for providing such employment to such class of persons, the petitioners shall be considered in the order of priority as per the date when they were retrenched. The seniority list among daily rated workers shall be prepared within 8 weeks and displayed in the notice board and a copy made available to any of the petitioners on demand, so that they protect their rights and obtain redressals suitably.
6. The writ petitions are disposed of on the above directions."
The instant writ petition has been filed on those very facts and seeking the same relief alleging as under:
"34. That the petitioners have filed writ petition No.6680 of 1990 in this Hon'ble Court which was admitted in 1990 but was adjudicated upon vide order dated 29.4.2011 at Annexure P/26 and was disposed of with directions as mentioned in preceding para 13. Since the respondent have not complied with the directions of this Hon'ble High Court on the same similar or any other grounds, the petitioners are left with any other remedy in law except to approach this Hon'ble Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case."Civil Writ Petition No.15410 of 2012 3
In view of the aforesaid fact alone that the petitioners have already approached this Court by filing CWP No.6680 of 1990 claiming the same relief, the present petition is not maintainable and hence, the same is dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE September 7, 2012 rps