High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kripa Shanker Ram v. The Managing Director And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 33302 of 1992  RD-AH 9519 (18 May 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Meth on daily wage basis in the Engineering Section of the U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd., at Ghazipur vide letter of appointment dated 9.5.1987. It is further claimed that he had been continously working with artificial break in service from time to time and since he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, his services are liable to be regularized.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2.2.1991 by which his services have been dispensed with.
Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as daily wager and was not appointed as a regular employee on a vacant post hencer has no independent legal right to be continously without there being any regular post. Since the petitioner claims to have worked on daily wage basis from 9.5.87 to 1.2.1991 for more than 240 days continuously, though with some artificial break in service and that he has been disengaged in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence his remedy lies under the U.P Industrial Disputes Act.1947 as it is not feasible in the writ jurisdiction to take evidence to record findings of facts merely on the basis of exchange of affidavits in a dispute requiring adjudication of facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, it is either for the employer to consider claim of the petitioner in accordance with Regularization Rules, if applicable to him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law if he is found eligible or the dispute for the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute for adjudication of his claim by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
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 alternate remedy. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.