Dismissed

Aqeeq Hanfe v. Union of India and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018WRIC/40358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman seeking a reference regarding his retrenchment. The court held that termination by punishment excludes the definition of retrenchment and the matter became barred after the prior writ petition challenging the punishment order attained finality.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; reference proceedings barred; no costs imposed on petitioner as a workman.

Aqeeq Hanfe Vs Union of India and 6 Others — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40358 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Aqeeq Hanfe Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Shanker Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Union Government dated 22.02.2016 by which the reference sought by the petitioner to question his alleged retrenchment has been refused by the following order:

¶7

"The penalty of discharge from service has been imposed on the workman after conducting disciplinary proceedings against Sh. Aqeeq Hanfi S/o Shri A.R. Hanfi. A punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary proceedings is not covered under Section 2(oo) of I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, the matter cannot be constructed of Industrial Dispute."

¶8

Undisputedly, the petitioner's service came to be terminated by order dated 12.01.2012 after culmination of domestic inquiry. Again admittedly, that order came to be confirmed in appeal by order dated 31.05.2012. Both orders were made subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 15404 of 2013 before the Punjab and Haryana, High Court, which writ petition was dismissed by order dated 25.11.2013. That order appears to have attained finality.

¶9

Subsequent to the aforesaid dismissal of the writ petition by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner appears to have applied to the Central Government for making a reference claiming that he had been retrenched from service.

¶10

In view of the facts noted above, it remained undisputed that the petitioner had been terminated from service by way of punishment order after completion of domestic inquiry. Therefore, the only course that may have been open to the petitioner was to have sought a reference to question the termination by way of punishment. Instead of approaching the "appropriate government" or seeking reference of such a dispute, the petitioner chose to file the writ petition to question the

¶11

punishment order. That writ petition having been dismissed and that order having attained finality, even the reference proceedings became barred in law. Once the writ court had upheld the punishment order, it would be difficult to allow the "appropriate government" to consider the issue any further.

¶12

As to the present order, clearly, the petitioner having been terminated by way of punishment, he would always fall outside the definition of the word "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶13

Since, the petitioner is a workman, the matter has been heard though the writ petition prima facie is barred by laches and costs are also not being imposed for reasons of the status of the petitioner as a workman.

¶14

Writ petition stands dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Abhilash

Aqeeq Hanfe v. Union of India and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aqeeq Hanfe v. Union of India and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Prakash Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Guru Charan Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court District Gautam Budh Nagar and 3 Others

Machhalpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhikhari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Singh and Another Vs Union Bank of India

Shyam Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Another