CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for the relief of restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners/workers and for direction to respondent No.2 to absorb/ regularise the services of the petitioners/workers in their existing services/posts with effect from their initial appointment through the contractor with consequential relief of equal wages, etc.

(2.) The respondent, vide their counter, took a preliminary objection and contended that the petition is an abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the present petitioners had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition on the same alleged cause of action asking for the same relief as in the present petition and that the earlier writ petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 5.5.1999 and the petitioners have in deliberate defiance of the earlier order filed the present writ petition asking for the same relief. The respondents, in this regard, have placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Labh Chand, (1993) 2 SCC page 495 and contended that as a judicial practice and procedure, the second writ petition should not be entertained by the court.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the present petitioners earlier filed C.W. P. No. 4310/98, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-D and prayed for order/direction holding that the petitioners/workman are working since long with respondent No.2 and be treated as regular employees of respondent No.1 and the respondents be also directed to pay the allowance and pay with all the regular employee of respondent No.1 and not to remove the petitioners from their services. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 5.5.1999, copy whereof is at Annexure-F, directed the petitioners to join/participate in the reference which has been made by the Government and pending before the Industrial Tribunal-Ill and also observed that the petitioner union cannot maintain the writ petition and thus, disposed of the writ petition requiring the petitioner to approach Industrial Tribunal-Ill for redressal of their grievances as the alternative remedy was available to the petitioners.