Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PYARE KHAN versus NAGAR PANCHAYAT SAHAWAR, ETAH THRU' CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pyare Khan v. Nagar Panchayat Sahawar, Etah Thru' Chairman And Another - WRIT - A No. 12151 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4749 (28 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

         

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari ,J

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

            The petitioner claims.that he was working as Peon in Nagar Panchayat Sahawar District Etah.  He was placed under suspension and after conclusion of departmental proceedings, his services were terminated vide order dated 12.8.1996.  He has made several representations for payment of his arrears of salary and reinstatement in service but no heed has been paid by the respondents.

Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to raise industrial dispute under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.

    It is consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.

However, despite availability of alternate and efficacious remedy, the only prayer of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) within some time frame.

  Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the above prayer of counsel for the petitioner.  

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 12.11.2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner remains aggrieved even after decision in his representation, it is open for him to raise industrial dispute under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. No order as to costs.

Dated 28.2.2006

kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.