The High Court dismissed the interlocutory application, holding that the underlying dispute regarding wage payments was an industrial dispute finally settled requiring adjudication by the Labour Court, precluding civil or writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sandeep Prabhakar, Adv with Mr Vikas Mehta and Mr Ishan Lamba, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 13274/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 180/2018
Page 1 of 6
LPA 180/2018
“1. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking the same very declaration as sought in this petition. The said suit was decreed and the first appeal against it was dismissed. However, in the second appeal, respondent had succeeded as petitioner has been relegated to raise an industrial dispute before the concerned Labour Court. It is matter of record that petitioner had sought review of order of 24th May, 2016 in RSA No. 178/2013 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. Vs Mahender Kumar which has been dismissed vide order of
5th August, 2016. Petitioner had then preferred “Special Leave Petition‟ which was withdrawn by him. Meaning thereby, the order passed in the Regular Second Appeal of relegating petitioner to raise an industrial dispute has attained finality. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks the same relief as sought in the civil proceedings which has already attained finality in the first round of litigation.
Page 2 of 6
LPA 180/2018
We also deem it appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in RSA 178/2013 dated 24.05.2016 which reads as under:-
“29. Thus, from the nature of the dispute raised by the respondent/plaintiff, it is very clear that it is an industrial dispute and, therefore, the Civil Courts would not have any jurisdiction to try the suit for payment for wages for a particular period for which the respondent/plaintiff was marked absent. That being the nature of the dispute, the judgment of both the Courts below are without jurisdiction and are therefore set aside. However, considering that the respondent/plaintiff is a workman, he is given the liberty to raise the dispute aforesaid before the Labour Courts for its adjudication.
(emphasis added)
Page 3 of 6
LPA 180/2018
dismissed. However, in the second appeal filed in the High Court by the respondent, the appeal was allowed, the appellant was given liberty to raise a dispute before the Labour Court. Mr Verma submits that no doubt a review of the order dated 24.05.2016 was dismissed and the SLP was also withdrawn by him but the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the order passed on 08.12.2017 in the disposed of RSA when liberty was granted to him to file appropriate proceedings as available to him under law including the Labour Court. Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no bar in entertaining a writ petition and thus the order of the Single Judge is liable to be recalled and the writ petition filed by the appellant herein should be heard on merits.
Page 4 of 6
LPA 180/2018
appellant as by a detailed judgment dated 24.05.2016 passed in RSA 178/2013 a categorical finding was returned that the dispute raised by the appellant herein was an industrial dispute and being a workman he was granted liberty to raise a dispute before the Labour Court for adjudication. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the Single Judge has rightly held that it would be inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into the factual arena to consider the case of the appellant herein.
Meanwhile, the SLP filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in the RSA was withdrawn. It is post transfer of the Judge who passed the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in RSA and order dated 05.08.2016 passed in the review petition that the appellant filed an application for modification. Once the order passed in the RSA has attained finality, that the nature of dispute raised is an industrial dispute, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition so filed has held that in would be inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226
Page 5 of 6
LPA 180/2018
of the Constitution of India to enter into the factual arena. Disputed question of fact cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 06, 2018 SU
Page 6 of 6
LPA 180/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in a dispute already conclusively determined as an industrial dispute requiring adjudication by the Labour Court.
Mahender Kumar
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
