9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of this judgment. At the conciliation stage itself, the bank has come to this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Conciliation officer to proceed with the matter, which was initiated upon issue of certain notices. Specifically, the petitioners have sought quashing four notices issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), pertaining to initiation of the conciliation proceeding. Copies of these notices have been made Annexures "P-16", "P-18", "P-20" and "P-21". On behalf of respondent no.4 preliminary objections on maintainability of this proceeding has been raised on two counts. It is the case of the respondent no.4 that being a Company incorporated outside India, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second ground of the objection is over jurisdiction of this Court to hear out the writ petition in the Original Side. Case of the respondent no. 4 is that all the respondents in this proceeding have their offices outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court and hence the writ petition ought to have been filed in the Appellate Side of this Court. A large body of authorities have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. But in the event an incorporated company, being a juridical person suffers an adverse order emanating from a public body having been passed without the authority of law, then such a company would be entitled to apply for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their claim, however, would not be based on any right preserved or guaranteed for citizens only under the Constitution or under any other law. This position would not change in respect of a company incorporated outside this country. A foreign company in any event has a right to sue and there is no bar under the Civil Procedure Code also in that regard. In the Constitution of India, rights under Article 19 can be enforced by a citizen alone. So far as Articles 14 and 21 are concerned, the expression 'citizen' has been omitted and the fundamental right guaranteed under these Articles protect the citizens and non citizens alike. Preliminary objection on maintainability of this petition on this ground is accordingly rejected. Now I shall turn to the question as to whether this writ petition filed in the Original Side of this Court can be examined by me or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the cases of Krsihnatosh Das Gupta Vs. Union of India [1979(2)CLJ 104] and Sakti Steel Traders Vs. Ashok Chakraborty [(1991) 2 CLJ 290]. On behalf of respondent no. 4, two Division Bench judgments were relied upon, being The University of Calcutta Vs. Sri Shyamal Kumar Das [1985(1) CHN 187] and [A.P.O.T. No. 114 of 2005] State of West Bengal Vs. Mohanlal Chakraborty & Ors.. In the case of Shyamal Kumar Das (supra), all the respondents had their offices within the Original Side Jurisdiction of this Court and no part of cause of action had arisen outside the said Jurisdiction. In that context, it was held that the proceeding was not maintainable in the Appellate Side of this Court. In the case of Mohanlal Chakraborty (supra) also, it was finding of the Court that the entire cause of action had arisen outside the Original Side Jurisdiction of the Court. In that writ petition, one respondent was impleaded with their office within the Original Side Jurisdiction of the Court, but no relief was prayed for against them. The Division Bench held, after referring to the prayers made in the writ petition:- "These are the two main prayers in the writ petition and from those prayers we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factually distinguishable vis-à-vis the context of this writ petition. Preliminary objection on this ground is also rejected. Turning to the merit of the case, I find the main ground on which dispute is raised by the writ petitioner is that the respondent no.4 is not a workman within the meaning of section 2[s] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Certain jurisdictional issues have been raised over the power or authority of the Conciliation Officer in issuing such notice. It has also been contended that the conciliation proceeding was earlier closed by the Conciliation Officer, and once a proceeding is closed, no fresh proceeding can be instituted on the same dispute. It appears that the respondent no. 4 had filed a suit before the City Civil court for a declaration that the letter of resignation submitted by him to the bank was null and void. The respondent no. 4 had raised the dispute initially in or about 21 July 1999, and the petitioners had taken the same stand at that point of time also. Thereafter, by a notice dated 26 November 1999, the respondent no. 3 (the Assistant Labour Commissioner) called the petitioners for conciliation. There was further exchange of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain special circumstances. Liberty of the respondent no. 4 to raise the dispute afresh was given in the same order by which the said proceeding was closed. That part of the order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Now that the suit of the respondent no.4 instituted in the City Civil Court stands withdrawn, the reason for closure of the earlier proceeding no more survives. I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondent authorities in proceeding in respect of the same dispute afresh. I am, accordingly, of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for invoking the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the proceeding, which has been instituted before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners shall be entitled to raise the points on the strength of which the present petition has been filed in course of the proceeding before the authorities under the said Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders passed in this matter shall stand dissolved. Since the writ petition itself is being dismissed, connected application being GA No.1299 of 2003 for all practical purpose b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
