High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sri R.K.S. Chauhan v. U.P.S.E.B. & Others - WRIT - A No. 51870 of 1999  RD-AH 8096 (30 April 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Case of the petitioners is that vide order dated 12.8.1992, he was transferred from Harduaganj Thermal Power Circle to Electricity General Circle and again vide order dated 3.11.192, he was transferred to Obra project, Sonebhadra. The petitioner claimed that he did not receive the transfer order dated 3.11.1992 and he made a representation dated 21.5.93 to this effect.
Vide order dated 27.12.1996, the petitioner was informed that there was shortage to the tune of Rs.15,40,260/- in coal store under his charge. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 5.2.1997 to the authorities. However, vide impugned order dated 15.10.1989, recovery at the rate of Rs.3661/- per month from the salary of the petitioner has been directed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
The questions of facts whether there is any actual shortage in the stores under the charge of the petitioner or not 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 Labour Court /Industrial Tribunal which forums are created with a specific object to deal with such matters requiring findings of facts. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits, as claimed by him can be decided only after consideration of oral and documentary evidence which may be led by the parties before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be.
In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari Sangh -(2004)4 SCC-268=2005 AIR SCW-3129, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that :-
".............Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest oportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurer. Nevertheless, even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed, the factual controversies which have arisen in the case remain unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner which is just and fair to both the parties. The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned Single Judge in Anand Prakash case had correct refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief."
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.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.