Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALI RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bali Ram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 46766 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3664 (2 March 2007)

 

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

Court No. 1

    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46766 Of 2006

Bali Ram

Vs

State of U.P. & others

~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,  J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.1.2006 and 3.5.2003 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

It appears from the record that the petitioner who was working as a Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has been removed from service vide order dated 25.10.2002 passed by the Regional Manager (respondent no. 3) without serving any charge sheet.

The petitioner alleges that there are three Conductors of similar names, i.e. Bali Ram (petitioner),  and the departmental proceedings were conducted against Bali Ram Singh and Bali Ram Prasad and not against him and no show cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 5334 of 22003 also against the aforesaid termination order dated 25.10.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.1.2003 with direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal/representation within three months in case the petitioner filed the same within two weeks.

It further appears that the appeal/representation of the petitioner having been rejected he filed another Writ Petition No. 33298 of 22003 which too has been dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2003 on the ground of alternative  remedy. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Chairman/Managing Director (respondent no. 1) who has rejected the revision vide impugned order dated 10.1.2006 which was received by him on 3.5.2006, hence this writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that his services have wrongly been terminated as neither the charges sheet has been served upon him nor he has been afforded any opportunity to be heard.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the questions raised in the present writ petition regarding identity of these persons of similar names and against one of whom charges had been levelled and domestic enquiry conducted. It is admitted fact that the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected, which normally would have been sufficient to come to the conclusion that all these proceedings have been taken against the petitioner. However, the petitioner  denies these facts, as such they require findings of facts by adjudication of factual dispute by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner, who is a workman, therefore, has alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court as findings of fact are required to be recorded on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide disputed question of fact.

In the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Chandrama Singh Vs Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow & Others, (1991) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C (2) 898, it has been held that in cases of termination of an industrial employee the remedy lies before the Labour Court which is alternate and efficacious remedy.

It has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that wherever an alternate remedy is available it should not be bye-passed; as such, the petitioner has to approach this Court after exhausting alternate remedy. Reference in this regard may be made to Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and 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 F.L.R. 729, wherein it has been held that in such cases the writ petition should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution unless a very strong case for interference is; made out

In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has not been exhausted by him.

In case an industrial dispute is raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer within one month, the Conciliation Officer shall try to amicably get the dispute settled between the parties, otherwise he shall refer it to appropriate Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. On reference the dispute may be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in accordance with law not later than six months from the date of reference keeping in view limitation provided for such proceedings under Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules.

         For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.  

Dated: 2.3.2007

Rpk/


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.