ABHIJIT MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.l to initiate action against respondent No.2 under the provisions of Sec. 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the I.D. Act); along with certain other prayers.

(2.) The petitioner, who is appearing in person, has submitted that his sole grievance, as of now, is that respondent No.2-employer had indulged in unfair labour practice. To protest against the said practice and for getting initiated an action against respondent No.2-employer the petitioner had moved representation to the appropriate Government. However, respondent No. 1-authority has not initiated appropriate action against the respondent No.2-employer. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Arguing the case the petitioner has submitted that his case is covered by Sec. 25T of the I.D. Act, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Ashok Vishnu Kate and Ors, 1995 SCC (6) 326. To carry forward his argument the petitioner has submitted that the provision of Sec. 25T of the I.D. Act prohibits from committing unfair labour practice by the employer or workman or a trade union irrespective of the fact whether the union is registered under the Trade Union Act or not. Hence, since the grievance of the petitioner is against the employer, therefore, he can raise the issue of violation of provisions of Sec. 25T of the I.D. Act by respondent No.2-employer. To cover himself under the Schedule, as mentioned in the Act, the petitioner has referred to entry No. 14 in part I of Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act. Relying upon the said entry, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed public interest litigation (PIL) before Hon'ble the Delhi High Court by way of WP(C) No.3693 of 2019, WP(C) No.5894 of 2019, WP(C) No.7007 of 2019, WP(C) No.7320 of 2019 and WP(C) No.4260 of 2019, all titled as Abhijit Mishra Versus Reserve Bank of India and others. Respondent No.2 - employer had asked the petitioner to move applications in these PILs,which had the potential of exonerating certain clients of the respondent-employer of their liabilities under various Acts. Since the petitioner had refused to file the said applications, therefore, the respondent-employer threatened the petitioner with loss of reputation, likelihood of loss of job and for destroying the career of the petitioner. This tantamounts to use of force. Hence the action of respondent-employer is covered by entry No. 14 of the Schedule. Therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. The respondent-employer deserves to be put on trial by directing the appropriate government to initiate the proceedings against the respondent-employer. To buttress his argument the petitioner has submitted that Sec. 25T uses the word 'shall', therefore, the said provision is mandatory and the appropriate Government does not have any discretion even not to initiate the proceedings against the employer; in case a complaint regarding the unfair labour practice is brought to the knowledge of the appropriate Government.