Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Freudenberg Nok Plant 1 & 2 Workers Union - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others - Respondents
CWP-9204-2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-07-2020
Industrial Disputes Act - Workers' Union - Section 25(T), 25(U), 33, 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour Act, emphasizing the need to avoid filing multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action and the importance of disclosing differences in cause of action and reasons for not including relief in previously instituted petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Workers' Union filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking action against the violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour Act. The court noted that the same parties were involved in a previous writ petition with similar prayers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to explain the difference in cause of action between the previous and present writ petitions and did not disclose the pendency of the previous writ petition in the present petition.
Issues: The court addressed the issue of whether multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action between the same parties should be permitted to be filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 32 of the 1976 Rules and emphasized the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, discouraging the practice of filing multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application for amendment of the pleadings in the previously instituted writ petition to include the relief sought in the present writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The petitioner-Workers' Union has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following substantive prayers:-
(ii) It is further prayed that during the pendency of present petition and the Conciliation Proceedings, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 be restrained from removing the machinery from the plaint in Mohali and Basma Village.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
2. At the outset, it is significant to note that the writ petitioner has filed a previous Civil Writ Petition No.8533 of 2020, which after notice of motion issued on 24.06.2020, is pending for 20.07.2020. The parties to the previous writ petition as well as the present writ petition are exactly the same. The memo of parties of the present writ petition reads as under:-
Versus
1. State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Punjab Civil Secretariat-2, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Labour Commissioner, Sector 17, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Labour Department, Government of Punjab, Sector 76, SAS Nagar, District SAS Nagar.
4. M/s Freudenberg Nok Pvt. Ltd., Main Plant No.1, Village Basma, Tehsil Banur, District SAS Nagar through its Managing Director.
5. Ashok Kumar son of not known, General Manager (HR), M/s Freudenberg Nok Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.2, B-70, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Sector 73, SAS Nagar, District SAS Nagar. ...Respondents”
3. This Court has also compared the pleadings of the petitioner in the previous writ petition i.e. CWP No.8533 of 2020 as well as the present writ petition i.e. CWP No.9204 of 2020. Apart from the addition of one sentence in para 12, the pleadings in both the writ petitions are the same. In para 12, only addition is as under:-
4. Even para with regard to the questions of law, is exactly the same as is in the previously filed writ petition. It may be noted here that apart from prayer (i), even the remaining prayers in the writ petition are to the same effect. Even the documents attached as Annexures in both the writ petitions are exactly the same.
5. While filing the present writ petition, the petitioner in para 20 of the petition, has stated as under:-
6. The only difference, according to this Court, is with regard to the caption of the petition as well as prayer (i) of the petition.
7. At this stage, it is important to note that the previous writ petition i.e. CWP No.8533 of 2020 was drafted on 15.06.2020, whereas the present writ petition was drafted on 17.06.2020.
8. This Court, for regulating the filing of the writ petitions, has notified the writ jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1976 Rules”). Rule 20 requires as under:-
(i) the name, description sufficient for identificatio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
