High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Om Prakash Sharma v. Nagar Palika Parishad Hathras And Another - WRIT - A No. 38378 of 2006  RD-AH 5008 (21 March 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Joshi, counel for the respondents and perused the record.
Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk on daily wage basis on 1.8.1987 in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad Hathras. Though the services of one Sri Brijesh Asthana, another clerk on daily wage basis have been regularized but the case of the petitioner has been ignored. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9.5.2006.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.5.2006 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, he has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of this writ petition.
Questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not to be decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for the High Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution in every case. Whether the petitioner has been continuously working on daily wage basis and whether he has put in satisfactory service or not are questions of facts which can be decided only after consideration of oral and documentary evidence whicih may be led by the parties before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.
Prayer for regularization of services cannot be granted by High Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and another V. Sardara Singh 1998 (9) SCC-709.
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 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.