High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Surat Prasad & Others v. U.P. State Corporation Ltd. Thru' M.D. & Another - WRIT - A No. 12654 of 2007  RD-AH 4080 (9 March 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Srivavastava for the respondents and perused the record
Case of the petitioner is that some materials of the unit Khadda of Sugar Corporation were stolen from the Store Department. Respondent no. 2 passed orders dated 8.8.2005 suspending 12 persons including the petitioners. First Information Report dated 8.9.2005 was lodged by respondent no. 2 and Crime Case No. 228 of 2005 was registered against the aforesaid 12 employees. After departmental enquiry, impugned order of recovery from petitioners, dated 26.12.2006 has been passed by respondent no. 2.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.12.2006, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of 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 take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution in every case as to whether impugned order of recovery from the petitioners suffers from any error of fact. Involvement of the petitioner in the theft case can only be decided after consideration of oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties.
The petitioners hveas 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 petitioners have 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 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.