Important point
Usually when writ petition is entertained notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy and issues are decided on merits, the Supreme Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Special Appeal filed by the appellant. The Special Appeal was filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge who had questioned the orders of termination in respect of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The main stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the writ petition filed by the respondents should not be entertained as they had efficacious, alternative and statutory remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) read with U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘U.P. Act’).

3. The background facts are as follows :

The respondents while working in the appellant’s concern made claims of 15 of the basic pay as an interim relief as was being paid to the officers and clerical staff at the Headquarters of the appellants concern, as according to them there was no justifiable reason for refusing the said relief to the staff at some units. The writ petition was filed (including amended prayers), inter alia, with the following prayers:

(a) to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from transferring, terminating the services of the petitioners and harassing and causing any harm to petitioners;

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay 15 of the basic pay as interim relief and fixed D.A. of Rs. 100/- to the clerical staff of the Maunath Bhanjan Unit Mills;

(c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(d) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners against the contesting respondents.

4. It is to be noted that five applications for amendments were filed and some of them were allowed by the High Court. Right from the beginning, the appellant was questioning maintainability of the writ petition as according to it statutory remedies were available and in the writ petition itself the writ petitioners accepted that the standing orders governing the service conditions were in operation. By one of the amendments, the order of dismissal passed was permitted to be questioned. So far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the stand was that the notice of show cause was alleged to have been refused by him when sent by the appellant on 21.11.1987. The same show cause notice was sent on 23.11.1987 by registered post which was received by the respondent No. 1 on 26.11.1997. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) sent his reply to the show cause notice dated 26.11.1987 which was received by the appellant on 2.12.1987. But the order of dismissal was passed on 1.12.1987. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea relating to existence of alternative remedy and only on the ground that the final order was passed before the receipt of the show cause reply, quashed the proceedings.

5. So far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned, it was held that the notice was given by publishing in the news item on the purported ground that he did not join the transferred post. The High Court held that the show cause notice containing the allegation of non-joining was not established to have been served.

6. Learned Single Judge noted that the writ petition was pending for great length of time and, therefore, it would be legal and proper to dismiss the writ petition. He did not find substance in the plea that had the writ petitioners availed a statutory remedy under the Act and the U.P. Act, the employer would have got the opportunity to show that the departmental proceedings were fair by adducing evidence in terms of Section 11-A of the Act. By filing writ petition according to the appellant, such a statutory right was rendered ineffective.

7. In the Special Appeal filed before the Division Bench, the stands taken were re-iterated. It was sp