IN^ THE_5 v. Unlon of India

Shri Shailesh A.huja,c4 unsei for The petitionep. tf> 5hri i-i.B. Aqrawai, cou^ se! for responoents. The petitioner has pr| fsrred this w?-it Dstition under nrticies 226/227 cf the Constitutit in of India chaiSenging hls 1'errTiinctior, order cated 19-11-99. . The petitioner's petitii| ^ is that he was appointed ten'ipor'ariiy in the S.E.C.L. in the year 197^ and his appolntmen" was extended froiTi time to time ond he was aiso promoted. Vide order dated 30 August 1996 passed by' the Chief reneml Manager, S.E.C.L., Hasdeo Ar'ea, cartcin aiieflations we.re· broi •rne pernwr.er· aiong wn'n A''s"h ight against the petitiorie?" clleging that her empioyees has forcibly caused the stoppage of the working -o' the mines, disrupted the productjon, essentlal services and saferl of the mines, asseuited Rainji Tiwari, Minlng 5IR&AR, Sought Jha^ khand Coliiery, wrongfully confined S.N. bubey, Sub Area AAoinOyer, ajnagci' open cast at Ssctor-A ' and als.3 wironufuliy confined Senior txecutivss at the guest house and the petitioner was dlsmissed w.e." 30"il Augusr 1996. The petitioner made a r-epresentation (Annexure-P/2) 16-9-96 and ths ostiticner jad also fi!ed an cposal cigainst the said order before the Chairman-u icaina &irector and ited thersir] £:-HC-22 'S^ '<iWWLf, 9-AWW. iqcliyy WHPIi' ait|l<ti fq^S' ci'>l^i^('^Tl 'RFMf ^ f^[^t ^f^gH ^; sipin sn^g 311^1 qil ft; ii?;sn^i '^4 ^lf^f •^h-,Ti' rtll aii^rti lu^ii •S'i^^. /?l!?s[.rt.'T*'!n^^ K^'^tir; liKC' ^Ai iCrf^^A i tWf F' agcinst him and meiitioned in ths order dnTed 30 August 1996 ai \e baseless. The cppeal fiied by tne petitioner was considered land some settlement was a"rivec at between the Mana9ement a jnd the petitioner'. Ths petitioner was W,^.. ; s-'i •iS^i'.^'^'/f ^i i"i£.i?i^iUi's^y us» Lxi&si'E^ .^"t^fMi^ r^t? ^•"iW „. ' iyr'."^. I" Pandiwparis Coiiiery vlde order dated 27-12-97. After his reins|1 |t'ctement and signing of 'H' Forrri settisrnent, the /Aanagem^n it authorities started 1-akihQ undus advantage cnd harassed the iyrade-II or Srade-III Clel ^petitioner by giving hiiTi the work which 'k was supposed to do and when the petitioner refused to do so, he was asked elther to accept the work assiqnad to him o" leave his job. The petitioner had no other option except to do so in order to s\ bve hi ,'e his services. Secondiy, the petitioner was ailotted to oerform tt'' ie duties during second nights, which normatSy the petitioner was n|? >t required to do. The pe+iticner v<as not granted one annual incremenl A show cause notice was isaued to the petitioner on 18-11-99. Hs !submitted his exDtanation but 'the sarne wcs not consider'eo' by the ^ ^anagement and terrriinated the ssrvicss of tha petitioner vide order dated 19-11-39. &urin9 that perioc the Detiticner was on ieave fl^ 'id his services have been wrongfui!y terminated. I haye heard the learn^d counsei for the parties. Xl-HC-22 T^ -^ww^, WTSW'W, hwwy tffWII ^iWqi sn^r'cRi ft^sn^i ?h-) '^f$d StI^I ^RHW :Hf?g -3- chWitn^^ ^(TH<vtt ^ fet^ ^TSlPOTSllt^I Learned counsei for| the respondents submitted that refersnce has already mcde to the Central (Sovsrnmsnt Industriai Tr'ibunai-cum-Labdi ur CourT at Jabalpur under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-sed |ion (2A) of Section 10 of the Industi'lal Disputes Act, 1947 yide lAnnexure-A dated 6-9-2002. Counse! further submitted that the petitioner is required to pursue his case with the Central Sovernrneil! remedy is availabie to the pe^ ht Industria! Tribunai. Since aiterriative •itioner, ths petition :is not maintainable. Learned counse! Ithe petitioner submitted that this writ petil-ion may be disposed oB" f with a direction that the respondents should co-oper'ate with th^ petitioner and they shouid assiat Tribuna! to decide the refgi) 'ence at the eariiest to whieh the learned counsel for •the respondents has no objection. Counsel for the setitifc •ifcner further subrnil-ted that in refe.-^nce order dated 6-9-2002 it wils ordered that the reference should be decided within a Deriod of 3 months, but refsrence has not been aecided so far. In the given situation] the Tribunat should decide the reference at the eariiest tookin9 to the^ terms of the reference made. Having heard the te<jr •ned counse! for the parties and having i'eaard to the above referehce order dated 6-9-2002, the petition is XI-HC-22 'S^ •^wm^, afll'M'is, ftiwiyy . /'yrl ^>J an^rqii 'r<,-fi.+ sni^T ctitlict>' ^lf^I sn^sr TRiiWHf^t -21- <^t^<¥f^l'1 *ii^<ni' ^ fi1c^ ^•SlpTOSII^I disposed of, as the matter has already been referred to the Centrai ©overnmentIndustrici Tribunai-l sum-Labou" Court, Jobalpur. However, ^ the Tribunal should expedite he hearincr of the rsference and to iecide it a" ths eariiest. ln view of the aboye, the *L /s^riT peTiTion STcnss OESPOSSG OT fMf^^^?^J^ f^ ;^ i ^?^*^^ '?*1--^-?&1 f^ ^"s ^ i ^^s ..^ ?^ /h ^B Parties we entitted for c^r 'tified coov of thia ordei-. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge •ill