Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOOL CHAND versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mool Chand v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 25147 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3717 (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. 25147 Of 2006

Mool Chand

Vs

State of U.P. & others

~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,  J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner, who is a permanent sweeper in the office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, has filed this writ petition against removal of his services vide impugned order dated 23.3.2005 passed by Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad on account of his alleged involvement in a criminal case during strike of temporary sweepers.

The case of the petitioner is that there was a strike of employees of the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, which was called off on 23.3.2005, but he was falsely implicated by the authorities of the Nigam with mala fide intention in a criminal case under Sections 192/323/504/506/379 I.P.C. at P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad in which he has got himself bailed out.

He appears to have moved an application dated 29.3.2005 regarding his false implication on which the Deputy Nagar Ayukta vide his notice/letter dated 4.4.2005 asked the petitioner to appear and give his statement before him on 5.4.2005 at 3.00 P.M., but the petitioner did not appear. As a consequence the petitioner has been terminated from services.

The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court as findings of facts are required to be recorded in the facts and circumstance of this case 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.