UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Lalji Sinha and Sri Amit Sthalker learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.N. Tiwari Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C.B. Gupta, Advocate, are present.

(2.) THE above said writ petitions arise out of common order dated 28 -7 -1997 (Annexure -17 to the writ petition) passed by the labour Court respondent No. 6 allowing the applications of respondents -workmen 1 to 5 Ram Kripal Singh, Smt. Munni Devi, Sadanand, Sheo Charan Lal and Shamsher Singh who had filed their separate applications under Section 33 -C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central) hereinafter referred to as the Act, which were numbered as Misc. Case Nos. 12/91, 13/91, 14/91, 15/91 and 16/91, all the said Misc. cases were clubbed together and decided with Misc. Case No. 12/91 as the leading case.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 28 -7 -1997 (Annexure -17 to the writ petition) alongwith its corrigendum -dated 4 -8 -1997 (Annexure -18 to writ petition) the petitioners filed the Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 against all the respondents 1 to 5 workmen. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that the petitioners delibertely wrongly wrote the name of respondent No. 1 workman as Ram Kripal Singh instead of Kripal Singh to avoid the reporting of the caveat application filed by it. However, no ad interim order was granted by this Court in the said writ petition. Having failed to obtain an interim order in this writ petition, the petitioners again filed 4 separate writ petitions against the same impugned order dated 28 -7 -1997 numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36520 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Shamsher Singh and Anr., Misc. Writ Petition No. 36522 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Munni Devi and Ors., Misc. Writ Petition No. 36524 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Sadanand and Ors. and Misc. Writ Petition No. 36527 of 1997, Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Lal and Anr., cancealing the fact that the above said Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 had already been filed challenging the same order passed by the respondent No. 6 in which all the respondents had been arrayed as respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and also the fact that no ad -interim order had been passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997. All these writ petitions were filed wrongly and falsely mentioning therein that they were the first writ petition filed against the said order dated 28 -7 -1997. In the aforesaid subsequent 4 writ petitions the stay order was granted by this Court on 29 -10 -1997 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount as ordered by the labour Court within two weeks with the Registrar of the High Court and that on deposit of the said amount the order of the labour Court dated 28 -7 -1997 shall remain in abeyance. The petitioner deposited the said amount with delay but did not deposit the amount of Rs. 1,000/ -in each case, which was ordered to be paid as costs to the respondents -workmen. The petitioner thereafter again filed a second application in the Writ Petition No. 33402 of 1997 concealing all the material facts with reference to the said 4 writ petitions and also obtained the stay order dated 26 -3 -1998 in the said writ petition.