IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CM No. _________ of 2022 in

Civil Revision No. 4582 of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala,

Distt. Patiala and others

…Respondents

INDEX

Sr. Particulars Date Page Court

No. No. Fees
A. Urgent Form 30.7.2022 -- 2.65
1. Application u/s 151 CPC for early 28.7.2022 1-2 2.65
hearing of the main case and for
taking up the same on an actual
date and for permission to
withdraw the main case
2. Affidavit 29.7.2022 3-4 --

Total Court Fees Affixed: Rs. 6.00

Notes:

1. Main case is pending in this Hon’ble Court after admission.

2. POA is already on record.
3. Advance copy of the application has been supplied to the office
of Sh. Rohit Khanna Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the contesting
respondent no. 2 and 3.
4. Whether any sitting or former MP/MLA involved in the case:
NO

Chandigarh
Dated: 30.7.2022 (AAKASH SINGLA)
P-989/2012
NoR: PH220009
Advocate/Counsel for the Petitioner
 “B”

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CM No. _________ of 2022 in

Civil Revision No. 4582 of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala,

Distt. Patiala and others

…Respondents

Total Court Fees Affixed: Rs. 6.00

Chandigarh
Dated: 30.7.2022 (AAKASH SINGLA)
P-989/2012
NoR: PH220009
Advocate/Counsel for the Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CM No. _________ of 2022 in

Civil Revision No. 4582 of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala,

Distt. Patiala and others

…Respondents

Application u/s 151 CPC for early hearing

of the main case and for taking up the same

on an actual date and for permission to

withdraw the main case, in the interests of

justice.

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the above titled main case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

after its admission vide order dated 29.3.2022.

2. That the present petitioner being aggrieved against the

impugned order dated 30.4.2013 whereby the Ld. Tribunal had

framed issue no. 1 as preliminary issue, had filed the present

revision petition. After issuance of notice in the main revision

petition, the matter was ultimately ordered to be admitted vide

order dated 29.3.2022.

3. That since the petitioner workman is out of job due to illegal

termination by the respondent employer since 2008, present

 petitioner would suffer huge irreparable loss as the matter is

since lying pending before the Ld. Tribunal.

4. That present petitioner does not wish to press the present

revision petition and the same may kindly be taken up for

hearing on an actual date and the petitioner may kindly be

allowed to withdraw the main revision petition, so that the Ld.

Tribunal may further proceed with matter, in the interests of

justice.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present application

may kindly be allowed as prayed in the heading and in view of the

submissions made in the present application, in the interests of justice.

Note: Affidavit is attached.

Chandigarh
Dated: 28.7.2022 (AAKASH SINGLA)
P-989/2012
NoR: PH220009
Advocate/Counsel for the Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CM No. _________ of 2022 in

Civil Revision No. 4582 of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala,

Distt. Patiala and others

…Respondents

Affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar aged about 45 years, son of

Sh. Nasib Chand, resident of House No. 101, Dhillon

Colony, Opposite Mohindra College, Patiala, Distt.

Patiala. Aadhar No. 374889122949, Mobile No.

7009490227.

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That the above titled main case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

after its admission vide order dated 29.3.2022.

2. That the present petitioner being aggrieved against the

impugned order dated 30.4.2013 whereby the Ld. Tribunal had

framed issue no. 1 as preliminary issue, had filed the present

revision petition. After issuance of notice in the main revision

petition, the matter was ultimately ordered to be admitted vide

order dated 29.3.2022.

3. That since the petitioner workman is out of job due to illegal

termination by the respondent employer since 2008, present

 petitioner would suffer huge irreparable loss as the matter is

since lying pending before the Ld. Tribunal.

4. That present petitioner does not wish to press the present

revision petition and the same may kindly be taken up for

hearing on an actual date and the petitioner may kindly be

allowed to withdraw the main revision petition, so that the Ld.

Tribunal may further proceed with matter, in the interests of

justice.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified that the contents of the present affidavit are true and

correct as per my knowledge and no part thereof is false. Verified at

Patiala on 29.7.2022.

DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CR No. ______________ of 2013

(Distt. Patiala)

Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Nasib Chand r/o House No. 101, Dhillon Colony,

Opposite Mohindra College, Patiala, Distt. Patiala.

…Petitioner

Versus

1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala,

Distt. Patiala.

2. The General Manager-HR, M/s Pepsico India Holdings Private

Limited (FritoLay Division), Village Channo, P.O. Bhawanigarh, Distt.

Sangrur, Punjab.

3. Managing Director, M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Global

Business Park, Tower – A, 4th Floor, Mehrauli, M.G. Road, Gurgaon.

…Respondents

…Contd. Next Page

 Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India praying for setting aside of Impugned Order

dated 30.4.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by

Respondent No. 1, whereby the application Annexure

P-3 filed by Respondent No. 2 for treating issue

regarding validity of the enquiry i.e. Issue No. 1 as a

preliminary issue was wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily

allowed on totally unsustainable grounds.

AND

Any other relief, in addition to or in alternative of the

relief already claimed, to which the petitioner may be

held entitled by this Hon’ble Court, may also be

awarded.

AND

For passing appropriate orders to take on record the

photocopies of Annexures P-1 to P-4 and to exempt

the filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4.

AND

For passing appropriate orders staying the operation

of the impugned order Annexure P-4 during the

pendency of present revision petition.

……

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Distt. Patiala

and as such are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court

under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when the

Impugned Order Annexure P-3 has been passed on totally unsustainable

grounds and against the well settled rule of law.

2. That the petitioner joined the M/s Pepsi Co. Respondent No. 2 in

2000 as MR6 and since then he was working there and lastly the

management without following the procedure and without any proper

inquiry dismissed him on 31.7.2008 in violation of principles of natural

justice and ultimately being aggrieved from his dismissal he filed the claim

petition dated 22.10.2008 Annexure P-1 before the Ld. Tribunal and the

respondent management filed reply Annexure P-2 to the aforesaid claim

petition and the Ld. Tribunal framed the Issues dated 9.11.2009 as under:

1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted by the

respondents against the workman was defective? OPW

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the workman committed

misconduct? OPM

3. Whether the services of workman were terminated by the

respondents in proper and legal manner? OPM

4. Whether the reference is not maintainable? OPM

5. Relief.

3. That the respondent management after about nine months from

framing of the aforesaid issues filed an application dated 3.10.2010

Annexure P-3 for treating Issue No. 1 of validity of inquiry as preliminary

issue.

Workman/Petitioner filed reply to the application Annexure P-3 and

contested the application with the main submission that the said issue

cannot be treated as a preliminary issue as the workman has challenged

the entire process of dismissal of his service including the alleged inquiry

and the workman petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application

Annexure P-3.

4. That the Ld. Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 30.4.2013

Annexure P-4 illegally, wrongly and arbitrarily treated Issue No. 1 as

Preliminary Issue and the said order is totally illegal and the approach
adopted by the Ld. Presiding Officer is totally wrong and totally contrary

law of treating preliminary issues and Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC and the said

order is not sustainable because of the following reasons:

a) Because as clear from claim petition Annexure P-1, the

petitioner has challenged the entire process of his dismissal

including the service of notices, alleged inquiry etc. and the

pleadings show that a complicated issue involving various disputed

facts arose in the case and the Ld. Tribunal to cover all the

disputed facts framed the omnibus issue of fact i.e. Issue No. 1

which reads as under:

1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted by the

respondents against the workman was defective? OPW

The said issue involves various disputed questions of facts

and it needs the evidence from both the sides and rather this is the

only issue regarding which the parties are to mainly lead the

evidence and thus, such a issue which need voluminous evidence

cannot be treated as preliminary issue.

b) Because the Ld. Presiding Officer passed the impugned

order giving total divorce to Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC while passing

the impugned order, because as per the said provision, only issues

of two kinds i.e. One, relating to the jurisdiction of the court and

Two, relating to a bar to a suit created by the Law can be framed

as Preliminary Issue and unless and no other issue like the

questioned issue can be treated as a preliminary issue because

neither the questioned issue involves a question of jurisdiction of

the court nor it involves any bar created by law for instituting the

suit and thus, the impugned order is totally illegal and without

jurisdiction and the same is patently in violation of Order 14 Rule

2(2) CPC and for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, Order 14

Rule 2(2) CPC reads as under:

“(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same

suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part

thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may

try that issue first if that issue relates to—

(a) the jurisdiction of the court, or

(b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time

being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks

fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until

after that issue has been determined, and may deal

with the suit in accordance with the decision on that

issue.”

c) Because the Issue No. 1 involves disputed questions of facts

and the workman petitioner is to lead the evidence on various

disputed facts as to how the alleged inquiry is defective and the

evidence/witness to be produced to prove this are to be produced

to prove other issues also, and thus, it is not proper rather it is

illegal to frame such a issue as preliminary issue because the

decision of whole of the case cannot be made by deciding this

issue, thus, no purpose will be served by treating the said issue as

preliminary one rather it will create harassment to the parties and

witnesses and the process adopted shall waste the time and money

of the parties apart from valuable time of the court and virtually

there shall be two complete trials as one to decide the preliminary

issue and then to decide the other issues on merits. Thus, the

impugned order is not sustainable.

d) Because the perusal of Order 2 Rule 2(2) CPC even shows

that the court is not even bound to frame the issue regarding
jurisdiction or bar to the suit created by law as preliminary, that is

why the law makers used the word “may try”, thus, the intention of

the law makers is clear especially from the joint perusal of Order 14

Rule 2(1) and (2) as Order 14 Rule 2(1) commands that subject to

the provisions of Sub Rule (2), the court shall pronounce judgment

on all the issues and the case in question does not fall the four

corners of Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC and thus, the framing of the

Issue No. 1 as preliminary issue is an illegal one. Order 14 Rule

2(1) CPC for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court reads as under:

(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a

preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of

sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.

e) Because the Ld. Tribunal has failed to consider that the

decision on the issue with regard to the validity of the enquiry

proceedings as a preliminary issue will result into re-trial as the

entire evidence will have to be adduced twice and it will cause a lot

of inconvenience to the witnesses.

f) Because the Ld. Tribunal has further erred in allowing the

application Annexure P-3 as the respondent management will get

an unfair chance to fill the lacunas in their case with regard to the

issues, the onus of which is on the management, more especially

the Issue No. 3 which read as under:

3. Whether the services of workman were terminated by

the respondents in proper and legal manner? OPM

The language of Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 make it amply clear

that these issues are based upon common evidence and no fruitful

purpose will be achieved by treating issue no. 1 as a preliminary

issue. Moreover, splitting up the proceedings before the Ld.

 Industrial Tribunal into two stages leads to unusual and inherent

delays and the same witnesses shall be examined atleast twice. In

today’s days when the Courts and the Industrial Tribunals are

struggling with docket explosion and are overburdened, need has

arisen to have a fresh look at procedures which are found to be

causing delays. Moreover, law cannot be fossil, and the Law should

be dynamic changing with the changing demands according to the

social needs, State policy and judicial conscience. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC

754, emphasized the need for adapting the law to new urges in

society and quoted with approval the Holmesian aphorism that the

“life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience” .

Similarly in State of Punjab vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.

(2004) 11 SCC 26, it was held that a decision although neither

reversed nor overruled may cease to be law owing to changed

conditions and changed law, as reflected by the principle “cessante

ratione legis cessat ipsa lex”.

The Ld. Tribunal has also erred in relying upon the

judgments mentioned in para no. 1 of the impugned order, as the

same are not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present

case in hand.

5. That the petitioner has not filed any such or similar petition either

in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or in any

other Court in India.

It is further prayed that the Impugned Order dated 30.4.2013

(Annexure P-4) passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby the application

Annexure P-3 filed by Respondent No. 2 for treating issue regarding

validity of the enquiry i.e. Issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue was wrongly,
illegally and arbitrarily allowed on totally unsustainable grounds, may

kindly be set-aside.

AND

Any other relief, in addition to or in alternative of the relief already

claimed, to which the petitioner may be held entitled by this Hon’ble

Court, may also be awarded.

AND

For passing appropriate orders to take on record the photocopies of

Annexures P-1 to P-4 and to exempt the filing of certified copies of

Annexures P-1 to P-4.

AND

For passing appropriate orders staying the operation of the impugned

order Annexure P-4 during the pendency of present revision petition.

Chandigarh

Dated: 21.7.2013 (Ashok Singla) (Ravish Bansal) (Aakash Singla)

P-495/88 P-1458/09 P-989/2012
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Re. CR No. ______________ of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Patiala, Distt. Patiala.

Affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Nasib Chand

r/o House No. 101, Dhillon Colony, Opposite

Mohindra College, Patiala, Distt. Patiala.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and

declare as under:-

1. That the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India has been read over to me and I have understood the contents

thereof and the said petition has been prepared as per my instructions

and the contents of the said petition are true and correct to my

knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing relevant has been kept

concealed therein.

2. That the petitioner has not filed any such or similar petition either

in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or in any

other Court in India.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge and nothing has been kept concealed therein. Verified at

Chandigarh on 21.7.2013.

DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CR No. ______________ of 2013

(Distt. Patiala)

Sanjeev Kumar Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Patiala, Distt. Patiala.

INDEX

Sr. Particulars Date Page No. Court Fees

No.
1. Civil Revision 21.7.2013 1-8 25.00
2. Affidavit 21.7.2013 9 --
3. Annexure P-1 (Petition) 22.10.2008 10-18 9.00
4. Annexure P-2 (Written 7.10.2009 19-33 15.00
Statement)
5. Annexure P-3 (Impugned 3.8.2010 34-38 5.00
Application)
6. Annexure P-4 (Impugned 30.4.2013 39-41 10.00
Order, Ld. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal Patiala)
7. Power of Attorney 19.7.2013 42 20.00

Total Court Fee Affixed: Rs. 84/-

Notes: 1) Similar case, if any: Nil

2) No caveat has been received in this case.

3) Next date in Industrial Tribunal is 22.08.2013 for the evidence of

the petitioner/workman.

Chandigarh

Dated: 21.7.2013 (Ashok Singla) (Ravish Bansal) (Aakash Singla)

P-495/88 P-1458/09 P-989/2012
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioner
 “B”

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CR No. ______________ of 2013

Sanjeev Kumar Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Patiala, Distt. Patiala.

Total Court Fee Affixed: Rs. 84/-

Chandigarh

Dated: 21.7.2013 (Ashok Singla) (Ravish Bansal) (Aakash Singla)

P-495/88 P-1458/09 P-989/2012
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioner