Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL HAMID versus ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abdul Hamid v. Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh & Others - WRIT - A No. 24712 of 1993 [2007] RD-AH 6416 (9 April 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard Sri Prakash Padia, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sunita Agarwal for the respondents and perused the record.

Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Foundary Man in the respondent-University vide order dated 13.5.1970. He claims that he was appointed w.e.f. 16.9.1974 as Moulder in the Polytechnic Workshop of the respondent-University by the Regular Selection Committee in place of one Sri Ishaq.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was to perform same work and duties including the responsibilties which Mohd. Ishaq was performing but the petitioner was not being paid the salalry and allowances at par with Mohd. Ishaq. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to redesignate the petitioner as Technical Assistant (Moulder) and he may be paid salary of Moulder in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 together with arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

Admittedly, the petitioner is non-teaching staff of Alighar Muslim University and is a workman within the meaning of provisions contained in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Prayer to redesignate him as Technical Assistant or to grant him pay scale of the said post  cannot be granted by High Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The questions of facts involved in this writ petition require adjudication of facts by appraisal of documentary and oral evidence. It is not feasible for the High Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution and adjudicate by stepping into the shoes of a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. These forums have been created with specific object to deal with such matters requiring findings of facts.  The questions as to whether the post held by the petitioner requires to be redesignated or the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of the post of Moulder or not, are mixed questiosn of facts and law which can be decided only after consideration of oral and documentary evidence whicih may be led by the parties before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be.        

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.

It is made clear that in case the petitioner moves to he Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, the same shall be heard and disposed of in the manner prescribed and time limits provided in Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 for filing written statements, rejoinder affidavit, documents etc.  If necessary, the proceedings may be held on day to day basis under Rule 12(4) of the aforesaid Rules.  The case may be decided preferably wihtin a period of six months from the date of receipt of reference in view of the judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ No. 17602 of 1990- Basant Lal V. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others-(2003) 1 U.P. L.B.E.C-154.

For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution as it requires findings of facts to be recorded on the basis of of oral and documentary evidence.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.   No order as to costs.

Dated 9.4.2007

kkb


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.