CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3348 OF 1990
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
--------
ASHOK KUMAR TRIVEDI, General Secretary of Bihar Provincial
P.W.D.Workers Union, Annie Besant Road, Patna -4.
——————– Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
——————- Respondent
For the petitioner: M/s. K N Choubey, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : M/S. Anil Kumar Jha,G. A. 2 and Uday Bhan
Singh, JC to G A 2.
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
******
A K Tripathi, J. I.A. No. 3377 of 2007 has been filed for substituting the
name of Ashok Kumar Trivedi, the then General Secretary of the
Union who died. The present General Secretary who is to be brought
on record is Trivedi Ambareesh.
2. Interlocutory application is allowed.
3. Petitioner, a Trade Union of so-called Provincial P.W.D.
Workers’ Union has filed the present writ application to enforce their
constitutional and legal right which, according to the petitioner, has
emerged from a so-called agreement entered between the Chief
Secretary, Government of Bihar and the employees’ union which are
contained in anneure-2 and 4 dated 12.2.1987 and 27.9.1989
respectively. The enforcement of this ‘agreement’ is sought through
-2-
the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Many an issue had been agitating the members of the
trade union and when it went unheard they gave a charter of demands
and a strike notice on 1.1.1987. This was under the provision of
Industrial Disputes Act as per averment in the writ and would be
evident from annexure-1 to the writ application. When the notice did
not beget any result the employees went on strike from 20.1.1987. A
conciliation proceeding was held with the Chief Secretary on the part
of the government and the employees’ representative from the union.
A kind of ironing out of the differences on some of the issues was
done and was recorded as would be evident from a perusal of
annexure-2. Thereafter, since no follow-up action was taken up by the
State, some more pressure was brought upon the government and
further negotiation was entered into due to threat of another strike
notice given by the petitioner’s union. The strike notice is annexed as
annexure-3. It is stated that after a long negotiation yet another
agreement was reached on 27.9.1989 which is annexure-4 to the writ
application. But when nothing emerged out from the same, the
petitioner body decided to file the present writ application.
5. From the tenor and submission made at the bar by the
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is
obvious that nothing has been done with regard to the matter right
from the year 1989. Governments have come and Governments have
gone but no decision with regard to the so-called agreed issues ever
came to be implemented. Therefore, they want a mandamus upon the
-3-
respondent State to enforce the so-called agreements between the
State and the union. Submission of the learned senior counsel is that
these are public orders publicly made and therefore are enforceable
under the Constitution as a way of right created in favour of the
petitioner and a duty cast upon the public body.
6. From the perusal of the averment and assertion made in
the writ application the negotiation and the cause of action is basically
arisen within the frame-work of the Industrial Disputes Act. If the
petitioner did not choose to enforce their right under the special act
and statute then this Court will not fill up the gap specially under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a so-called
agreement arrived at between the parties whose legal status is not even
certified or qualified.
7. The writ application is totally misconceived and
misdirected. It is dismissed as such.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
Patna High Court;
The 26th November, 2008.
(NAFR) RKPathak.