1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Dau Singh
Vs.
State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3285/2008
Date of Order :: 03/11/2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioner.
Mr.Manoj Bohra for Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT:
By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman has
challenged the order Annexure-5 dated 12th July, 2007 to the
extent declining to make a reference on the ground that the
respondent-Institution has already been declared as relief
undertaking and in view of the provision of Section 12(5) of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”
hereinafter), no reference can be made in respect of
establishment which has been decarled as relief undertaking.
2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
order Anneuxre-2, the respondent-employer exempted for the
requisite educational qualification for the appointment and by
exempting requisite education qualification, the petitioner has
been appointed w.e.f. 15.8.94, however, the financial
sanction was w.e.f. 1st April, 1995.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ
petition stands concluded by this Court in a bunch of writ
petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.486/2006; Manager,
Spinning Unit Gangapur now known as Spinning and Ginning
Mills Federation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and 11 others,
decided on 16th October, 2006 wherein this Court held that in
respect of establishment/industry declared as relief
undertaking, the provision of ID Act shall not be applicable,
however, that shall be confined to the period for which the
respondent Industry/establishment has been declared as
relief undertaking.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
order Annexure-4 dated 17th May 2007, the respondent
industry has been declared relief undertaking and that order
3
came to be extended for further one year by order dated 22nd
September, 2008 and according to learned counsel for the
respondents, the respondent-State was justified in not
making the reference for adjudication of industrial dispute.
From the perusal of the order Annexure-4 dated
17th May, 2007, it is clear that the respondent-Rajasthan
State Cooperation Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation
(Spinfed), Jaipur has been declared relief undertaking and the
period for such declaration has been extended from
12.10.2008 to 11.10.2009 vide order dated 22nd September,
2008 and this Court elaborately considered the question of
legislative competence and the period for which the
respondent-employer has been declared relief undertaking.
This Court has held as under:-
“The State Government by issuing notification
under Section 3 does not permanently debar the
legal proceedings under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Suspension of such
legal proceedings is only co-terminus with the
time till the concerned industry remains a relief
undertaking. This does not therefore take away a
remedy available to a workman permanently.
Movement the industry seize to be a relief
4undertaking, proceedings before the learned
labour court or the industrial tribunal, as the case
may be, under the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act would stand revived. In a situation
like this, endeavor of the courts should be to
apply the principle of harmonious interpretation to
make both the enactments workable. Since
legislative compliance for enacting both the Acts
in pith and substance emanate from demarcated
area of legislative power referable to separate
entries though i the same concurrent list, there
does not arise any question of conflict between
the two, let alone any repugnancy. As held by
their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
ITC Ltd. (supra) a duty is cast on the courts to
harmoniously construe two enactments and the
provisions contained therein and therefore, it
cannot be accepted that the proceedings before
the labour court could be continued even when
the industry concerned has been declared as a
relief undertaking.”
Keeping in view the decision of this Court in the
bunch of writ petitions referred hereinabove, in my view, the
respondents were justified in passing the order Annexure-5
Dated 12th July,2007.
5
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit
in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
NK