High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shri Shabahat Husain Khan v. U.P. Industrial Cooperative Association Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9144 of 2007  RD-AH 2903 (21 February 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri Z.M. Khan, counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.K. Birla counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Case of the petitioner is that he joined U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association as a Salesman on daily wage basis w.e.f. 5.4.1083. His services were terminated vide order dated 2.4.1987. His case was decided in his favour by the Labour Court vide award dated 26.9.1995 against which the respondent-U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Ltd., Kanpur preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8675 of 1997 which was decided in his favour vide judgment and order dated 6.3.2002. Vide order dated 29.4.2003, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Salesman
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 8.2.2007 about termination of his service but it is claimed that his services have not been discontinued till date.
The fact whether the impugned notice/order suffers from any illegality or infirmity, can only be adjudicated after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence to be adduced by the parties which is not feasible in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.
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.
Moreover, the controversy raised in the instant writ petition is covered by decision rendered in Civil Misc. Writ No. 19640 of 2004- Smt. Saroj V. State of U.P. and others.
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.