High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok Kumar Singh v. Managing Director U.P. State Handloom Corp. Ltd. Kanpur &Ors - WRIT - A No. 50936 of 2003  RD-AH 1067 (7 October 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50936 of 2003
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Managing Director, U.P. State
Handloom Corporation Ltd.Kanpur
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Managing Director, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., Kanpur whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service and recovery of certain amount has been directed to be made from the petitioner. He is further aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and communicated to the petitioner by the Managing Director whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to adopt coercive measures against the petitioner and pay arrears of his salary and other dues.
The petitioner was appointed as Production Assistant in the U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., Kanpur in the year 1979. By order dated 3.6.1997 passed by the respondent-Corporation the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served with show cause notice alongwith the charge-sheet and after enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.12.1999, against which the petitioner has filed appeal which was dismissed on 14.10.2003.
On 17.9.2004 this Court had passed order directing the petitioner to show cause why this writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as the petitioner comes within the meaning of workman under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and he has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court.
In response the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. On being asked as to whether any such ground had been raised before the appellate authority in appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the same from the record. Thus, in my view the ground that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing cannot be taken for the first time in the writ petition, specially when the same had not been raised in appeal.
Sri S.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has categorically stated that in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 S.C.C. 496 wherein it has been held that where the right claimed by the petitioner relates to enforcement of rights and obligation created under the Industrial Disputes Act the same cannot be bye-passed and as such the only remedy available to the petitioner is to get the matter adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said view that where alternative remedy is available, the writ petition would not be maintainable has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the following decisions; (i) Scooters India Vs. V.Vijai E.V.Eldred (1998) 6 SCC 549 (ii) L.L.Sudhakar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6 S.C.C. 634 and (iii) State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 S.C.C. 216. As such in my view the law is well settled that before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has to exhaust the alternative remedy available under law.
In the present case the matter requires adjudication on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which can only be adduced before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and as such in my view this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs.
However, in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Basant Lal Vs. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and others (2003) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 154 it is directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner within a month from today, the said authority will try to amicably settle the dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as the case may be. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Court in the manner prescribed and time limits provided in Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 for filing written statements, rejoinder, documents etc. If necessary, the proceedings may be held on day-to-day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules and the case may be decided preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of reference.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.