ARJUN VISHWA KARMA Vs. ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that an order of retrenchment passed on the 28th October 1969, be quashed. A further prayer has been made to the effect that opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 be directed to refer the dispute regarding retrenchment of the petitioners under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. A copy of the order of retrenchment has been given as Annexure 1 to this petition. By Annexure 1 a large number of persons were retrenched, one of whom was Borhan Kumar, who had filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1510 of 1969 In this Court which case was dismissed by judgment and order passed on the 6th May 1970. Borhan Kumar had also prayed in his writ application that his retrenchment on the 28th October 1969 may be quashed. There is no difference between the cases of the present petitioners and that of Borhan, Kumar and, therefore, this writ application must fail for the same reason for which Borhan Kumar's writ application had failed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, raised two points specifically in this case as follows. It is contended that the order of retrenchment passed against the petitioners should be quashed for the reasons given in the case of Somu Kumar Chatterjee v. The District Signal Tele-Communication Engineer by this Court decided on the 23-5-1969, which case has been reported in 1970 Lab IC 629 (Pat). But, this decision had also been cited in Borhan Kumar's case by Mr. Ranen Roy who had appeared for that petitioner in the earlier writ case and Somu Kumar Chatterjee's case, 1970 Lab IC 629 (Pat) was distinguished there for the reasons given in Paragraph 5. Therefore, it is not possible to hold at this stage that the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in view of the decision of Somu Kumar Chatterjee's case, 1970 Lab 1C 629 (Pat). Learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that a retrenchment order can be passed only after fulfilling the conditions laid down by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as that was not done, the petitioners are entitled, at least, to a declaration that the order of retrenchment was void. It is difficult to accede to this contention also on the facts and circumstances of the case. In effect the petitioners have asked for a writ of mandamus, because if the order of retrenchment is declared to be void, they must be ordered to be reinstated. It is not possible to grant only a declaratory relief in this case, if it be held that for the reasons given in the earlier writ case, the petitioners are not entitled to a writ of mandamus resulting in their reinstatement. If this Court merely declares the order of retrenchment to be void in this case, as argued, the result will be that their reinstatement must follow and the effect of the judgment of the earlier writ case is that the petitioners cannot also contend that the retrenchment order was illegal.

(2.) FOR the reasons given above, this writ application must be dismissed, but without costs.