Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 993 (MP)

G. R. Jaiswal v. Personal Manager S. E. C. L.

1996-12-03

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI

body1996
ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 8.7.97 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in appeal u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1971, confirming the order dated 21.11.95 of the Estate Officer, S. E. C. L. Kusmunda has been challenged. 2. The un-disputed facts are that the petitioner as an employee of S. E. C. L. occupies official quarter No. 618 in S. E. C. L. Kusmunda. The petitioner's services were terminated on 20.5.95. He then resorted to the remedy under I.D. Act, 1947 by raising a dispute. The conciliation proceedings u/s 12-A of the I.D. Act ended in failure. The matter in now with the Central Govt. for deciding the question of making reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act. The orders in that behalf by the Central Govt. u/s 12 (5) of the I.D. Act are awaited. In the mean time the petitioner was declared an unauthorised occupant of the official quarter and the Estate Officer directed his eviction. He challenged that order in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge construed rule 25.3 of the certified Stunting Order and came to the conclusion that merely because the conciliation ended in failure and the matter is pending with Central Government for reference of dispute, the petitioner cannot be allowed to retain quarter. According to the learned District Judge the petitioner would have been authorised to retain the quarter under the Standing Order 25.3, only if the matter was pending with Central Government Industrial Court. It is held that the petitioner has no present right to occupy the quareter. 3. Sttri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of his eviction and submits that Standing Order 25.3 has been misconstrued to hold the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of the quarter. 4. Shri Rajendra Menon learned counsel appearing for the employer supports the view taken by the Estate Officer and the Appellate Court and the interpretation placed on Standing Order 25.3, The relevant Standing Order 25.3 reads as under :- The use of Company's quarters is conditional on the workman being in service of the company. 4. Shri Rajendra Menon learned counsel appearing for the employer supports the view taken by the Estate Officer and the Appellate Court and the interpretation placed on Standing Order 25.3, The relevant Standing Order 25.3 reads as under :- The use of Company's quarters is conditional on the workman being in service of the company. However, where case pertaining to the concerned workman is pending before C.G.I.T. till the case is decided by the C.G.I.T. or where the management prefers an appeal against the AWARD of the C.G.I.T. till the case is decided by the Hon'ble Court of Law. 5. The above quoted Standing Order no doubt speaks of pendency of case before Central Government Industrial Court. The provisions of the Standing Order, however, have to be reasonably construed in the light of the provisions of I.D. Act which contain the procedure for seeking reference of Industrial dispute to C.G.I.T. under the provisions of I.D. Act a workman has to initiate conciliation proceedings and it is only after failure of the conciliation that the Central Government can be approached for reference. The proceedings in conciliation are therefore steps towards seeking a reference to C.G.I.T. The standing Order 25.3 which speaks of pendency of case before C.G.I.T. should, therefore, be reasonably construed to mean that it covers all steps of proceedings which are pending under the I.D. Act for seeking reference of Industrial dispute to C.G.I.T. construed thus the provisions of Standing Order 25.3 can become meaningful and effective otherwise although ultimately a reference is made by the Central Government to C.G.I.T. and the case is pending, the workman concerned will have to face eviction from the quarter. A purposeful interpretation has to be placed on Standing Order 25.3. 6. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of the Estate Officer dated 29.11.95 (Annexure P-4) and the order of the District Judge dt. 8.7.96 (Annexure P-7) are hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to retain the quarter till the Union Government makes or refuses to make a references u/s 12 (5) of the I.D. Act, and until conclusion of all Court proceedings in relation thereto: 7. In the circumstances there shall be no orders as to costs.