High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mashooq Ahmad v. The Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 11772 of 2006  RD-AH 4467 (24 February 2006)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11772 Of 2006
Mashooq Ahmad Vs the Union of India and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner is a class III employee and joined the respondents-company on 13.2.1983 at its head office- Naini Allahabad. Thereafter he was transferred from Naini Allahabad to Mumbai vide order dated 10.10.94. He moved a representation-dated 15.10.1994 against the aforesaid transfer order before the respondents which remained unactioned. Then the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36883 of 1994 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.1994 directing the respondents-authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.94 within 10 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.11.1994 the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 15.1.2005.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.1.2005 the petitioner again filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13436 of 1995 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 2.3.2000 by quashing the impugned orders dated 10.10.1994 and 15.1.1995. Against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.3.2000 the respondents-authorities have filed special appeal before this Court which is still pending.
The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the respondents are permitting him to resume his duties nor he is being paid salary since October, 1994 till date.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from October, 1994 till date to the petitioner and continue to pay the same month to month as and when it falls due
A preliminary objection has been made by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as the matter requires findings of fact by adducing oral and documentary evidence which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will, therefore, not be feasible to decide this matter in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.
In Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & another Vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005) 107 FLR 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where specific remedy is provided, High Court should not entertain a writ petition and deviate from the general rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies under Article 226 except when a very strong case for bypassing of alternative remedy is made out.
The petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in view of the aforesaid decisions and Full Bench decision rendered in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director U.P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and others, (1991) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C.(2) 898.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, it is directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute within six weeks from today, the Conciliation Officer will try forthwith to settle the dispute amicably. In case no settlement is arrived at, he will refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute within a time schedule as contained in Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The Labour Court shall decide the dispute within a period of 3 months thereafter.
No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.