High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sunil Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secre. Local Self Deptt. & Ors - WRIT - A No. 11718 of 2006  RD-AH 4522 (24 February 2006)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11718 Of 2006
Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The case of the petitioners is that he was appointed on the post of ''Safai Karmchari' in the pay scale of Rs. 750-950 in Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur vide order dated 26.10.1990 passed by respondent no.3.
It is alleged that thereafter he was promoted on the post of ''Safai Nayak'. He was suspended vide order dated 18.1.2001 on certain charges by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur. After holding enquiry the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 17.2.2001 passed by respondent no.3 giving him warning to be more vigilant in future. The petitioner has made a representation dated 23.1.2006 against the impugned order dated 17.2.2001 before respondent no.2 which has remained unactioned till date.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.2.2001 passed by respondent no.3.
A preliminary objection has been made by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as the matter requires findings of fact by adducing oral and documentary evidence which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will, therefore, not be feasible to decide this matter in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.
In Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & another Vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005) 107 FLR 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where specific remedy is provided, High Court should not entertain a writ petition and deviate from the general rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies under Article 226 except when a very strong case for bypassing of alternative remedy is made out.
The petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in view of the aforesaid decisions and Full Bench decision rendered in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director U.P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and others, (1991) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C.(2) 898.
Though the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available before the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal Industrial Tribunal as observed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays that the representation of the petitioner dated 23.1.2006 may be directed to be decided by respondent no.2 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
The Standing Counsel has no objection to this prayer.
In the circumstances this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent no. 2 shall decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 23.1.2006 by a reasoned/speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before him. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation, he may approach the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.