Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 556 (JHR)

ASHIQUE HUSSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-05-02

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT By the Court - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.1997 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner being CWJC No. 1080/96 (R) was dismissed. The order dated 13.2.1997 passed by of learned single Judge is quoted are in below : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application is dismissed." From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that petitioner/appellant had challenged the order dated 1.2.1995 issued by the Desk Officer of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India refusing to refer the disputes for adjudication by the Tribunal. In the writ petition, the petitioner made out a case that during conciliation proceeding, although petitioner workmen was agreeable for an arbitration both, under the Act as well as under the code of discipline but the Management declined to accept it. In spite of that without the consent of the petitioner, the matter was sent to the Arbitration. The Desk Officer taking into consideration the Code of arbitration refused to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator. In the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh (AIR 1989 SC 1865) and also in catena of decisions the Supreme Court held that the appropriate Government while refusing to refer the disputes for adjudication cannot enter into the merit of the case. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition was entertained and notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents filed their counter-affidavit. Inspite of that, it appears that the writ petition was dismissed in limine. At the very outset, we are of the view that the dismissal of writ petition in limine is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. It is worth to quote the observation of the Supreme Court made in the case of M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Union of India and others ( AIR 1998 SC 688 ). Their lordship observed : "At the outset, we may say that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ought to have given reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. As stated in Fauja Singh vs. Jaspal Kaur, (1996) 4 SCC 461 , on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. As stated in Fauja Singh vs. Jaspal Kaur, (1996) 4 SCC 461 , on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. The absence of reasons has deprived the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine, it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal. The necessity to provide reasons how so ever, brief in support of the High Courts conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated, obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. It becomes difficult for this Court in all such cases to remit the matters to the High Court inasmuch as by the time cases reach this Court, several years would have passed." In the light of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is fit to be remitted back to the learned single Judge for disposal of the writ petition on merit. This appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 1080/96 (R) is set aside. It is directed that the writ petition shall be listed for hearing by the learned single Judge on merit and for final disposal. In view of the fact that the writ petition is pending for a long time, let it be listed for Admission immediately after the Summer Vacation with prior permission of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Appeal allowed.