Lpa or slp in the given situation
V.N.K. MENON
(Querist) 14 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
Ld. Experts/ advocates of L/C,
In view of rejection of early hearing application [on account of being senior citizen having sickness and disability] by single bench/ High Court, I approached the Division Bench by way of LPA.
Cogent reasons for early hearing, as submitted in the application, are briefly reproduced below for reference:
------
1. (a) The RESPONDENT-APPLICANT IS A SENIOR CITIZEN [weaker group 62 years of age as at 26 May 2014]. Cases of senior citizens are privileged to early hearing as per the Apex Court directions and also various High Courts including this Hon’ble Court, especially Bombay High Court which reduced the age for entitlement from 65 years to 60 years on 3rd December 2013 in terms: “The Chief Justice and Judges have now directed that precedence be given by courts for hearing and final disposal of the cases wherein one of the parties has attained the age of sixty years and above.
(b) TERMINATION WAS MORE THAN 11 YEARS AGO ON 17.07.2002: AWARD BY LABOUR COURT WAS ON 01.08.2006 and it was challenged by the Petitioner non-applicant by way of a writ petition in garb of appeal in disguise as substantiated in CM No. 10378/12 [on record] and is pending.
2. Respondent-applicant is suffering from sickness and disablement:
(i) Respondent-applicant workman is hard-of-hearing aggravated due to discrimination by the Management as he was not provided with equipments/ uniforms to withstand the severe cold at the place where he was posted situated at 4000ft. altitude near Kullu, Himchal.
(ii) The respondent-appellant workman has breathing problem which was aggravated due to discrimination from other employees at remote place as he was not provided said equipments by petitioner non-applicant, to withstand severe cold at remote place situated at 4000ft. altitude despite several requests [craves leave to produce proof/communications as and when produced] and had to take treatment from a prominent hospital which prescribed costly medicine and inhaler for survival.
(iii) Moreover, the victim was given a forced retirement by the Petitioner non-applicant w.e.f. 26.05.2012 allegedly for attainment of 60 years by discriminating him from contemporaries/colleagues [ref: list attached page -------- of LPA Annx “A2”].
(iv) Respondent-applicant has no livelihood as he was not given bonafide retirement benefits although the statute [Sec-60(1)(g) CPC] precludes authorities from attaching retirement benefits and is beyond attachment by any court of law and finds it difficult to get medical treatment.
(v) Violation of Para 72(5) of EPF Act: To tide over the situation, Respondent-applicant submitted necessary forms to Petitioner non-applicant for withdrawal of p.f. accumulations on 25.11.2003 by Speed post vide No. ED324506157IN. As per Para 72(5) of the EPF Act, an employer is duty bound to forward duly filled in and attested claim application to the respective PF Office within “5 days of its receipt” and is craving to get medical treatment. Further it is reiterated that retirement benefits cannot be attached by any court of law under Sec.60(1)(g) CPC and relying on various Apex Court rulings. The Management violated provisions of EPF Act which was not complied till 17.01.2014 and thus attracted punishment as per law.””””
The D/B gave the liberty to approach Single Bench with the prayer. Accordingly approached Single Bench who rejected the application for early hearing application taking the version of respondent as gospel truth and without giving me opportunity to be heard.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER SLP IN APEX COURT HAS TO BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER
OR
IS IT OPEN TO APPROACH DIV. BENCH AGAIN WITH THE SAME REQUEST?
THANK YOU .
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 February 2014
First clarify whether your prayer for early hearing was dismissed by the writ court or or your writ petition itself was dismissed.
If the writ petition is dismissed by the single judge then first LPA lies then SLP.
V.N.K. MENON
(Querist) 15 February 2014
First of all, thank you Mr. Barman. I feel I do not have to start a fresh string.May I clarify:
IN A NUT-SHELL
---------------
01/08/2006 - Award by Labour Court for (1) reinstatement with (2) backwages and (3) continuity of service with all consequential benefits.
__/11/2006: Writ Petition under Art.226/227 filed by Mgmt. challenging the award in the cloak of an appeal in disguise as after cross-examining the workman the Management vanished even though 14 opportunities were given by Lab. Court, they did not bother to utilize the right of restoration . When implementation notice was received from Govt. of Delhi, Mgmt woke up and approached the Labour Court for cancellation of award which was rejected by Lab. Court. Thus Mgmt approached H/Court by way of WPC – thus in cloak of appeal in disguise. Rejoinder was filed for rejection of WPC which was not granted. Stay of implementation of award was granted to Mgmt.
--/ 12/2006: 17-B Application for interim relief was also filed by me w/man.
--/08/2008 : 17-B application rejected by Single Bench. W/man filed LPA. The Div. Bench was in the process of allowing 17-B when offered to give 17-B relief and reinstated the w/man. [Retirement was given to w/man on attaining 60 years – in the absence of retirement clause in the service conditions/appointment terms and also in discrimination with colleagues/contemporaries]
--/06/2012: Application filed by me , i.e. w/man, for early hearing of the said WPC of Mgmt was filed before single bench which was rejected.
--/12/2013: W/man filed LPA – The Div. Bench gave option to w/man to take up the matter with Single Bench.
Accordingly, approached the Single Bench by way of Civil Misc. application.
03/02/2014: The Single Bench rejected Early hearing application as narrated in my last message to Ld. Forum.
MY QUERY IS BASED ON ABOVE FACTS. HOPE I AM ABLE TO CLARIFY THREAD-BARE.
SHALL APPRECIATE IF A CONSIDERED REPLY IS RECEIVED, PLEASE. THANK IN ANTICIPATION.
