Withdrawal of an industrial dispute bars subsequent claims for relief; engaging in similar processes without following due course constitutes an abuse of law.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent-University may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement w.e.f. due date along with all consequential service benefits in the interest of justice and in future also.

(b) That in alternative, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent to confer work charge status w.e.f. due date in favour of the petitioner along with interest.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Mess Helper by the respondent-University, in the year 2007. His services were terminated in the year 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, as submitted by his counsel, raised an Industrial dispute, in the year 2015. The Government refused to refer the same to the learned Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP no. 1424 of 2019, titled Devi Dayal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., before this court. The writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court on 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), in the following terms:-

“6. It is recorded in the impugned order that after the conciliation, no settlement was reached under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Once it is not disputed that the provisions of the Act would apply, it may not be open to the Government to nonsuit a worker only on the ground of delay and laches.

7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Government is directed to make a Reference of the dispute. It shall include a question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any relief and if so with reference to delay and laches on his part.”

3. Thereafter, a Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court. However, the petitioner, rather than pursuing the Reference so made, withdrew the same in terms of an Annexure P-3, on 13.09.2023. The order passed by the learned Labour Court on 13.09.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-

“The petitioner vide separate statement stated that he do not want to continue the present case and statement of petitioner placed on record. In view of the statement of the petitioner the case is dismissed as withdrawn Therefore, nothing survive in the present reference petition which is answered accordingly Let a copy of this order be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.”

4. Thereafter, the petitioner, filed CWP No. 2573 of 2024 before this Court, titled Devi Dayal Vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University , assailing the order passed by the learned Labour Court on 13.09.2023. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), in the following terms:-

“Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had himself withdrawn the reference petition before the learned Labour Court, this Court fails to understand as to how the writ petition against the said order is maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition being misconceived, is dismissed in limini. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

5. Now, by way of this writ petition, the petitioner has again approached the Court and he has made the above- mentioned prayers therein.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that persons similarly situated like the petitioner, have been re-engaged by the Authorities after the adjudication of their labour disputes, the present writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to reinsta