High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyamji Sharma & 3 Others v. Union Of India Thru' D.C.H., Min. Of Textiles & 3 Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1353 of 2006  RD-AH 19223 (14 November 2006)
Special Appeal No. 1353 of 2006.
Shyamji Sharma ........... Appellants
Union of India & others ........... Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Hare Ram Mishra.
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V.K. Birla, Advocate, Standing Counsel &
Addl. Solicitor General of India.
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bharati Sapru on the 5th of September, 2006.
The appellants are all retrenched erstwhile employees of shrinking units owned by the U.P. Handloom Corporation, a wholly State owned Government undertaking.
Since in the order of the first Court, the writs were all dismissed because of the existence of an alternative remedy alone, i.e., remedy in the labour Court, the appellants have raised this grievance that it is not even a certain alternative remedy.
According to them they were managers and therefore not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, at the time of making of reference on request by the writ petitioners, it is conceivable that the State Government can turn down such request on no fewer than two grounds that is (i) the applicant is not a workman and (ii) in the discretion of the State Government a reference of the industrial dispute is not called for. As such according to the appellants the alternative remedy is not such as will entitle the writ Court to dismiss the writ after affidavits have been filed and two years have elapsed after the filing of the writ petition.
It is secondly urged by the appellants that one of the prayers in the writ petition was that even if the present retrenchment is not interfered with, the State Government and or any of its Corporations do offer alternative employment to the writ petitioners. According to the appellants no labour Court can grant this type of relief but only the writ Court can.
The main reason why we do not find in favour of the appellants is that during the pendency of the writ each of them has received about Rs. 4 lacs by way of retrenchment compensation, gratuity etc.
No doubt the receipt was followed immediately by letters from them stating that acceptance was without prejudice and their keeping the money or returning the money will depend on the way the writ was disposed of.
It was, according to appellants, a conditional acceptance. In our opinion it is no such thing not every act can be performed and appended with a condition by way of a written letter and thus the act made conditional by a unilateral act. Everything depends on the gravity of the act and the facts and circumstances of the situation. A sum of Rs.4 lacs is no mean sum and the acceptance of it, though not a bartering away of the right to file a writ, which can never be done, yet is certainly a determinative factor against the use of the Court discretion in granting any relief.
The situation is that the work in a State unit was shrinking down and to make retrenchment, humane sizeable compensations were given. In this situation one cannot reasonably hope to get anything more after accepting the compensation and using it as one's own money thereafter. The question of alternative employment is not even to be thought of in the job situation of this overpopulated State.
Legally the appellants might be right that there are problems about the alternative remedy being certain; but in our opinion the real point is not of any alternative remedy or any other remedy. The appellants have to be satisfied with whatever money they have got and in our opinion the amount is neither unjust nor a mere pittance.
The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.