High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Haridwar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 12278 of 2007  RD-AH 3931 (8 March 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri J.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Srivastava, counsel for the respondents and perused the record
Case of the petitioner is that he was allowed to work as Accountant in Zila Panchayat Ghazipur w.e.f. 19.7.1995. Vide order dated 24.8.1998, he was placed under suspension and thereafter was reinstated vide order dated 14.10.1998 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. After submission of enquiry report dated 18.6.1999, he was exonerated of the charges levelled against him vide order dated 2.9.1999.
On the basis of some complaint before Lok Ayukt, enquiry was initiated against the officials of Zila Panchyat, including the petitioner. After completion of departmental proceedings, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Clerk Grade I vide impugned order dated 5.11.2003 and statutory appeal preferred by the petitinoer has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 27.6.2005. Revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.11.2006.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.
Normally questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for this Court to tale oral and documentary evidence undere Article 226 of the Constitution in every case as to whether impugned orders of reversion and the dismissal of revision suffer from any error of fact. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to get the dispute adjudicated on facts by cogent oral and documentary evidence.
It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the 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.
The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as held in Chandrama Singh V. Managing Director U.P.Co-operative Union Lucknow and others- (1991)1UPLBEC(2)-898.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that it is open for the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute within a month from today. If the authorities are not able to bring the parties to amicable settlement, the matter may be referred to concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal which shall decide the reference strictly in accordance with the time schedule prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rules framed in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.