Ramesh Kumar V. Union of India and Ors.

CW/2877/2005

AI Insights

Ramesh Kumar filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for his industrial dispute with the Income Tax Department to be referred to the Labour Court. Previously, he had withdrawn an Original Application from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, and had also filed a writ petition which was dismissed, advising him to approach the appropriate authority for his grievances under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur, later advised him to approach the appropriate forum as the Income Tax Department is not considered an 'Industry' under the said Act. The respondents argued that the appropriate forum for such disputes is the Central Administrative Tribunal, not the Labour Court. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the principles of res judicata do not apply as the earlier writ was not adjudicated on merits and the petitioner could still approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2007] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701013 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2007
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K MATHUR; ARVIND SAMDARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: K S YADAV
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax Department; Industrial Dispute; Labour Court; Res Judicata; Writ petition; Industry definition
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2877/2005 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Date of Order : 21/03/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. K.S.Yadav for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Mathur } Mr. Arvind Samdaria } for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to entertain the complaint/ industrial dispute raised by the petitioner and to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed an Original Application being O.A. No.16/02 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur which came to be withdrawn by him on 8.1.2003. However, the withdrawal of the O.A. was on the ground that the petitioner will approach the appropriate authority for redressal of 2 his grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6912/2003 seeking a direction to the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2003, however, it was made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if he has any grievance with regard to violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Thereafter, vide Annex.4, the petitioner moved to the respondent No.2 the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur and vide order Annex.5 dated 17.8.2004, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur, while considering the complaint filed by the petitioner, held that Income Tax Department is not an 'Industry' as defined in the I.D. Act and therefore, instead of making a reference to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) advised the petitioner to raise the claim before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that in the instant case the appropriate forum is the Central Administrative Tribunal and not the Labour Court since the Income Tax Department is not an Industry as per the definition of 'Industry' provided under the I.D. Act and therefore, no reference can be made to the Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that withdrawal of the 3 earlier O.A. without obtaining the leave would not attract res judicata as has been held by Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam 2005 (5) SCC 91 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the applicability of principles of res-judicata held as under :- “The writ petition filed by the respondent concededly was not adjudicated on merits. Apparently, she did not avail the alternative remedy which was more efficacious. Before the Labour Court even disputed questions of fact could be gone into and adjudicated upon which would ordinarily not be permissible in a writ proceeding. If the respondent had made a prayer for withdrawal of a writ petition on the said ground, she cannot be denied the remedy available to her in another jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the statute. The principles embodied in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure laying down a public policy are not applicable to a case of this nature. A writ petition filed by the respondent could have been dismissed even on the ground that another alternative remedy which was more efficacious was available and furthermore on the ground that the writ court would not go into the disputed question of fact. Even in such an event, it was open to the respondent herein to approach the Labour Court or to take recourse to other remedies which were otherwise available to her.” In para 11 of the report, it was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :- “The Labour Court, therefore, in our opinion, wrongly applied the principles of res judicata.” 4 In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal though earlier he had withdrawn the O.A. but that being not res judicata in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Co- operative Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra), it is open for the petitioner to move before the Central Administrative Tribunal. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp "