GOPAL KRISHAN WAHI Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Gopal Krishan Wahi, an employee of M/s. Pandit Brothers, 9-10-F Connaught Place, New Delhi, against Shri Harcharan Singh, Conciliation Officer, respondent No. 1 and his said employer, M/s. Pandit Brothers, respondent No. 2, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus against respondent No. 1 directing him to take up the petitioner's dispute with respondent No. 2 for conciliation and deal with the same on merits.

(2.) The facts of this case are not disputed in material respects. The petitioner had been in the employment of respondent No. 2, for a number of years. His services were terminated by the said respondent by means of its letter dated April 2, 1965. He was asked to collect his salary up to date and one month's pay in lieu of notice, together with salary in lieu of privilege leave due to him on that date. On April 12, 1965, the New Delhi Trade Employees Association, herein called 'the Union' made a representation to the Conciliation Officer, Delhi, saying that the petitioner was a member of the said Union and its other members espoused his cause. The termination of his services was alleged to be illegal and bad in law*. The petitioner was said to be entitled to reinstatement. The Conciliation Officer was requested to start the conciliation proceedings immediately and in the event of the failure of the same, he was asked to refer it to the labour court for adjudication. The respondent firm in reply denied the espousal of the petitioner's cause by any one. The Conciliation Officer accordingly gave to the Union an opportunity to produce evidence on espousal on April 22, 1965 and then again on May 5, 1965. The Union not only failed to produce the required evidence, but in fact, failed even to arrange its own appearance before the Conciliation Officer on The dates fixed. As no one pursued the matter further on behalf of the petitioner, the Conciliation Officer by his letter dated Sept. 22, 1965 informed its General Secretary that "since a substantial number of workers of the establishment has not supported the cause of the workman" he was unable to take any further legal action under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the case was being filed in his office. This brought the matter to a close and the petitioner or the Union took no action thereafter.

(3.) On Feb. 4, 1966, the said Union again made a representation before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi and reiterated the facts mentioned in their earlier representation. No mention, however, was made in this representation about the petitioner's case having been filed earlier by the Conciliation Officer, as was mentioned in letter dated Sept. 22, 1965 from him. The respondent-firm drew the attention of the Conciliation Officer to the earlier proceedings when no espousal was forthcoming from the other members of the firm's staff to the individual dispute raised by the petitioner and when the petitioner's case had been filed by the order dated Sept. 22, 1965 of the Conciliation Officer. On this, the Conciliation Officer wrote to the Union his letter dated April 19, 1966 saying that the dispute had been closed in Sept., 1965 as the Union had failed to produce the espousal in spite of repeated demands. The Union was informed under these circumstances that the dispute could not be taken up in conciliation again unless the condition of espousal was fulfilled. It was also mentioned that the service of the petitioner having been terminated much earlier than the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to individual disputes, he was not entitled to the benefit given by the amendment and the individual dispute in the petitioner's case could not be treated as Industrial dispute. After a reminder from the Union for reconsideration of the matter, the Conciliation Officer, by his letter dated Oct. 19, 1966, wrote that in the absence of the espousal of the petitioner's case by a substantial number of workmen of the establishment the Union had been informed of the closing of the matter by the Conciliation Officer. In case the Union felt aggrieved it should have moved in the matter at that very stage. The question of giving further consideration to the matter after a lapse of more than a year did not arise. It was then that the petitioner filed the present writ petition.