High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Krishan Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Ministry Of Parivahan Nigam & Others - WRIT - A No. 20649 of 2006  RD-AH 3693 (2 March 2007)
Court No. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20649 Of 2006
Krishna Bahadur Singh
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 26.5.2005, 3.9.2005 and 30.12.2005 passed by respondent nos. 4, 3 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 impugned order dated 26.5.2005 after conducting an enquiry into the charges for carrying 46 passengers on 21.9.2001 without tickets from Varanasi to Azamgarh.
It further appears that while the petitioner was conducting Bus No. UP 65A/9378 from Varanasi to Azamgarh on 21.9.2001 Sri Subedar Singh, Traffic Inspector checked the bus at Hanumanganj at 12.15 p.m. and found that 46 passengers were travelling without tickets in the bus and the petitioner refused to show way bill and ticket book to the Traffic Inspector. The Traffic Inspector accordingly submitted his report in this regard to the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh (respondent no. 4) who served the charge sheet dated 18.10.2001 upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with respondent no. 5 who is a relative of his Pattidar.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 3 against his removal from service on the ground that independent witnesses were not called for examination/examination-in-chief. The appeal having been dismissed by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 3.9.2005 the petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the Chairman, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow (respondent no. 2) vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2005 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner urges that the services of the petitioner have been wrongly and illegally terminated as the charges levelled against him have not been proved by any independent witness and the report dated 21.9.2001 sent by the Enquiry Officer (respondent no. 5) to the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh holding the charges to be proved iis without any basis, arbitrary and illegal.
The learned counsel for the respondents states that as the petitioner is challenging the domestic enquiry report consequential orders of the authorities based on the findings contained therein the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court under Sec. 6 (2A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further that the findings of fact can also be independently recorded on the basis of oral and documentary evidence by the Labour Court by summoning the witnesses and documentary evidence etc. 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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.