Suresh Kumar Pithode Vs. Western Coalfields Limited - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1041864
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-13-2013
AppellantSuresh Kumar Pithode
RespondentWestern Coalfields Limited
Excerpt:
1 r.p.no.79/2013 suresh kumar pithode western coalfields ltd.& others 13.3.2013 shri rajesh chand, counsel for petitioner. shri anoop nair and shri shoeb khan, counsel for respondents. this review petition is directed against an order dated 12.9.2012 in writ appeal no.1106/2011, by which the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 6.5.2011 in writ petition no.3428/2009(s) was dismissed. this review petition is also barred by limitation, so the petitioner has filed an application-ia no.2374/2013 seeking condonation of delay. considering the nature of relief and the delay caused in filing the review petition, we allow this application and condone the delay in filing the review petition. heard on merits. learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that by order dated 6.5.2011 in w.p.no.3428/09(s).the writ court issued two directions namely:- “in such circumstances, this petition deserves to be disposed of with following directions:- “1. if petitioner shall submit a representation alongwith certified copy of this order with proof of his age before the age determination committee, it shall be adjudicated in accordance with law within a period of four months.”2. if petitioner feels aggrieved by such order he can take recours.of law under the provisions of industrial disputes act. accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid direction.” in so far as direction no.1 is concerned, petitioner has no grievance, but in respect of direction no.2, it is submitted by shri 2 r.p.no.79/2013 suresh kumar pithode western coalfields ltd.& others 13.3.2013 rajesh chand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the writ court has restricted the petitioner to challenge aforesaid order only before the labour court under the provisions of industrial disputes act while the petitioner is having other forum also including invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, so liberty may be granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to the petitioner including the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this court. though prayer made by the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel for respondents, but considering the fact that petitioner is always free to avail remedy under law for challenging the aforesaid decision of age determination committee, we find it appropriate to modify the relief no.2 granted by the writ court in following terms:- the petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the order passed by the age determination committee, shall be free to take recours.of law under the provisions of industrial dispute act and under any other law as is permissible to the petitioner. with this clarification, the review petition is finally disposed of, with no order as to costs. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) judge judge c.
Judgment:

1 R.P.No.79/2013 Suresh Kumar Pithode Western Coalfields LTD.& others 13.3.2013 Shri Rajesh Chand, Counsel for petitioner.

Shri Anoop Nair and Shri Shoeb Khan, Counsel for respondents.

This review petition is directed against an order dated 12.9.2012 in Writ Appeal No.1106/2011, by which the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 6.5.2011 in Writ Petition No.3428/2009(s) was dismissed.

This review petition is also barred by limitation, so the petitioner has filed an application-IA No.2374/2013 seeking condonation of delay.

Considering the nature of relief and the delay caused in filing the review petition, we allow this application and condone the delay in filing the review petition.

Heard on merits.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that by order dated 6.5.2011 in W.P.No.3428/09(s).the writ Court issued two directions namely:- “In such circumstances, this petition deserves to be disposed of with following directions:- “1.

If petitioner shall submit a representation alongwith certified copy of this order with proof of his age before the Age Determination Committee, it shall be adjudicated in accordance with law within a period of four months.”

2. If petitioner feels aggrieved by such order he can take recouRs.of law under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid direction.”

In so far as direction No.1 is concerned, petitioner has no grievance, but in respect of direction No.2, it is submitted by Shri 2 R.P.No.79/2013 Suresh Kumar Pithode Western Coalfields LTD.& others 13.3.2013 Rajesh Chand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the writ Court has restricted the petitioner to challenge aforesaid order only before the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act while the petitioner is having other forum also including invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, so liberty may be granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to the petitioner including the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Though prayer made by the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel for respondents, but considering the fact that petitioner is always free to avail remedy under law for challenging the aforesaid decision of Age Determination Committee, we find it appropriate to modify the relief No.2 granted by the writ Court in following terms:- The petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Age Determination Committee, shall be free to take recouRs.of law under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and under any other law as is permissible to the petitioner.

With this clarification, the review petition is finally disposed of, with no order as to costs.

C.C.as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C.