Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1859 (RAJ)

Chief Manager, Ajmer v. Hitlar Prasad

2012-08-29

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the interim order dated 28.2.2012 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in Case No. LCR No. 45/2007 titled Hitlar Prasad vs. Chief Manager, RSRTC Ajmer. 2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ petition having been filed against an interim order passed by learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal Ajmer, is not maintainable as only a final order passed under the Industrial Disputes Act can be challenged in writ proceedings before the High Court. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the case of Dena Bank Vs D.V. Kundadia 2011 (131) FLR 775. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has replied to the objection raised by the counsel for the respondents on the premise that there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act so as to grant interim relief and the order impugned herein passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer is without jurisdiction. In such view of the mater, it is submitted that the petitioner can challenge the order impugned by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution as the question relates to the jurisdiction of court below. 4. In reply to the question of jurisdiction of the Court below in passing the order impugned, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is incorrect to say that the Industrial Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to grant interim relief. According to him, The Industrial Tribunal is empowered to grant interim relief in appropriate cases. He has submitted that the expression `matters incidental thereto' in Section 10(4) of the industrial Disputes Act governs the grant of interim relief in appropriate cases. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the cases of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & ors. vs. Hotel Workers' Union 1959 (II) LLJ 544 (SC), Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd. vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & ors., 1989 (59) FLR 99 and the case of M/s. Modern Suitings vs. P.O., Laobur Court Cum Industrial Tribunal, Court Campus, Alwar & Anr., (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14057/2009), decided on 8.8.2011. 5. The primary contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that interim relief cannot be granted by the Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, is not sustainable. 5. The primary contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that interim relief cannot be granted by the Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, is not sustainable. The issue was considered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as back as in the year 1959, in the case of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & ors., (supra). It had observed as under: “After a dispute is referred to the tribunal under s. 10 of the Act, it is enjoined on it by s. 15 to bold its proceeding expeditiously and on the conclusion thereof submit its award to the appropriate government. An " award " is defined in s. 2(b) of the Act as meaning "an interim or final determination by an Industrial Tribunal of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto." Where an order referring an industrial dispute has been made specifying the points of dispute for adjudication, the tribunal has to confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto; (s. 10(4)). It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the tribunal in these cases had to confine itself to adjudicating on the points referred and that as the question of interim relief was not referred to it, it could not adjudicate upon that. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument, in view of the words "incidental thereto” appearing in s.10(4). There can be no doubt that if, for example, question of reinstatement and/or compensation is referred to a tribunal for adjudication, the question of granting interim relief till the decision of the tribunal with respect to the same matter would be a matter incidental thereto under s. 10(4) need not be specifically referred in terms to the tribunal. Thus interim relief where it is admissible can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal without being itself referred in express terms.” 6. Thereafter in the case of Laxminarayana N. & Anr. vs. Management of Loka Shikshana Trust & Anr., 2001(III) LLJ 1318, the High Court of Karnataka had held, in Para 9, as follows: “The next question is whether the Tribunal could pass the order granting interim relief. This order was not questioned by the respondent and the same has become final and conclusive. vs. Management of Loka Shikshana Trust & Anr., 2001(III) LLJ 1318, the High Court of Karnataka had held, in Para 9, as follows: “The next question is whether the Tribunal could pass the order granting interim relief. This order was not questioned by the respondent and the same has become final and conclusive. Even otherwise, I hold that the Court has ample power to pass interim orders dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of the nature passed in this case is in a way sustenance amount as the matter has been pending for several years without any progress. In this case, the relationship of the parties was not in dispute. Equally, there was no dispute that when the matter was pending in the Court, these petitioners were dismissed from service and without permission of the Court, etc. The inordinate delay leads to misery and jeopardize the life of the petitioners.” 7. Similarly in the case of Management of Kanoria Industries Ltd. vs. Bangalkot Cement Company Workers Union & Anr., 2001-I-LLJ 155, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had observed in Para 8 that: “Hence, if the Tribunal or the Labour Court, is yet to pronounce on the propriety of the punishment imposed on the worker the worker is equated to the status of an employee suspended pending inquiry. If so, any payment in the form of interim relief is nothing but subsistence allowance contemplated under the Service jurisprudence. In such a situation, to contend that the finding on the domestic enquiry by the Tribunal/ Labour Court is sine qua non for considering as to whether interim relief has to be granted or not is not a correct proposition of law.” 8. Coming to the question of maintainability of the writ petition, as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention has force. No writ petition lies against an interim order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal because it is only against passing of a final award that a party aggrieved can challenge the same before the High Court. No writ petition lies against an interim order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal because it is only against passing of a final award that a party aggrieved can challenge the same before the High Court. The said principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. D.V. Kundadia, 2011(131) FLR 775 and it was held in Para-2 as under: “It is well settled by this Court that no writ should be entertained against an interim order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. It is only when a final award is given, then a party should be allowed to challenge it if he is aggrieved.” 9. In view of the above, the contention raised by the petitioner that no interim relief can be granted by a Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal is not sustainable. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, in case the final award is passed against the petitioner, then it will be open for him to challenge the interim order of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2012 at that time. The stay application is also dismissed.