Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10493/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10493 of 2008
=========================================================
PASCHIM
RAILWAY KARMACHARI PARISHAD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
P C CHAUDHARI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 21/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. In
this petition, the petitioner has made below mentioned prayers :
(A) That
your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent No.1 either to immediately, post
the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Ahmedabad or transfer the present
reference to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the said Act
for speedy adjudication of the dispute.
(B) Pending
admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be
pleased to issue an order restraining the respondents No.2 and 3,
their agents and servants from proceeding further with the
charge-sheet dated 10.1.2007 marked ANN. B to this petition.
2. It
can be seen from the relief prayed for by the petitioner that the
petitioner’s request is for direction to respondent No.1 to transfer
the proceedings of Reference, for which order of Reference has been
passed by the respondent No.1 on 27.11.2007, from Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad to Industrial
Tribunal. It is pertinent that before making said request in present
petition, the petitioner has not approached the respondent No.1 with
such request and has directly filed this petition. In view of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is for the
appropriate Government to pass the Order of Reference and to refer it
to the Labour Court or Tribunal as may be expedient and in cases
where the Central Government is appropriate Government, it may decide
to address the Order of Reference to Tribunal, which is considered
appropriate and this Court would not interfere with such decision of
the appropriate Government. In the present case, the petitioner is
making request on the ground that due to non-availability of the
Presiding Officer, the actual commencement of Reference proceedings
may take more time and such delay would frustrate the petitioner’s
request for interim relief.
During
the submission, Mr. Chaudhari stated that the petitioner will
approach the appropriate Government, however, appropriate Government
may be directed to take decision on petitioner’s representation
within 15 days.
It
would be open to the petitioner to make representation to the
appropriate Government i.e. the respondent No.1 to consider the
request of modifying the order of Reference and transferring the
Reference to the Industrial Tribunal. If and when such representation
is made, the appropriate Government may consider the same in
accordance with law and pass appropriate order as early as possible.
It is hoped that the respondent No.1 will take into consideration the
reason for petitioner’s request and also the request for urgency and
the appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law, as early
as possible and practicable.
3. By
virtue of the relief prayed for in para 10(B), the petitioner has, by
way of interim relief prayed that the respondents No.2 and 3 be
restrained from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry
pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 10.1.2007. It is settled legal
position that the Court would not injunct disciplinary proceedings
and/would not restrain departmental authority from proceedings with
the departmental inquiry. The interim relief prayed for by the
petitioner for direction against the respondents restraining them
from proceeding further pursuant to the charge-sheet and thereby
staying the departmental inquiry cannot be granted. Thus, the said
prayer is rejected.
4. With
the aforesaid observation and clarification, the petition is disposed
of.
(K.M.THAKER
J.)
ynvyas
Top