1. Dispute regarding minimum scale of pay for a Typist and the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 versus remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 982
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P.Bharucha : V.N.Khare
Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited
Versus
M.D.Omana
Case No. : 5055 of 1977
Date of Decision : 7/23/97
When an appellate court reverses a finding of non-maintainability of a writ petition, it should remand the case to the lower court for a decision on merits rather than granting relief without providing detailed reasoning.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Industrial Disputes Act - Maintainability of writ petition - Single Judge held that disputed questions of fact existed and the respondent should seek remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, making the writ petition not maintainable - Division Bench reversed this, holding the writ petition maintainable and granting relief regarding the minimum scale of pay for a Typist in Category 3 - Where the appellate court focuses on the maintainability of the petition but provides little discussion or reasoning for the relief granted, the proper course is to remand the petition to the lower court for disposal on merits. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking the minimum scale of pay for the post of Typist in Category 3. The Single Judge initially declined jurisdiction under Article 226, citing disputed questions of fact and the availability of remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. On appeal, the Division Bench held the petition maintainable and granted the requested relief.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the Division Bench elaborately discussed the maintainability of the writ petition, there was insufficient reasoning provided for the actual grant of relief to the respondent.
Issues: Whether the Division Bench should have granted relief directly or remanded the matter to the Single Judge after determining the writ petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: When a higher court determines that a writ petition is maintainable after it was rejected by a lower court on that basis, the matter should be remanded to the lower court for a hearing and disposal on merits, especially if the higher court has not provided detailed reasoning for the relief granted.
Result: Appeal allowed. The order under appeal is set aside insofar as it grants relief upon the writ petition to the respondent; writ petition remanded to the Single Judge to be heard and disposed of on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the case involved disputed questions of fact necessitating a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act or was maintainable under Article 226. (Para 2 )
3. The Division Bench adequately addressed maintainability but failed to provide sufficient reasoning for granting the substantive relief to the respondent. (Para 3 )
4. A writ petition found maintainable on appeal should be remanded to the lower court for disposal on merits if the appellate court lacks sufficient reasoning for relief. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; relief granted by the Division Bench set aside; writ petition remanded to the Single Judge for expedited disposal on merits. (Para 4 )
6. What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate court finds a writ petition maintainable after a lower court rejected it?
The appellate court should remand the writ petition to the lower court for consideration and disposal on its merits, especially if the appellate court has not provided elaborate reasoning for granting the relief. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Can a writ petition under Article 226 be maintainable even if the lower court identifies disputed questions of fact?
Yes, a Division Bench may conclude that a writ petition is maintainable despite a Single Judge's finding that the issues are disputed questions of fact. (Para 2 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the questions raised by the respondent in her writ petition were disputed questions of fact. He took the view that the respondent should avail of the remedy provided by the Industrial Disputes Act and that her case was not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226. In the letters patent appeal filed by the respondent the division bench, by the order under appeal, came to the conclusion that the respondents writ petition would lie. Having come to that conclusion, it observed that the respondent could not be denied the right to the minimum scale of pay in the post of Typist in Category 3.
(3) WE find that whereas there has been an elaborate discussion of the conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable there has been little discussion of reason why relief was granted to the respondent. We think that the division bench ought to have remanded the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for consideration upon the basis that it was maintainable, and that is the order that we propose to pass.
(4) THE appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside insofar as it grants relief upon the writ petition to the respondent. The writ petition (WP No. 444 of 1994 shall now stand remanded to the learned Single Judge to be heard and disposed of on merits upon the basis that it is maintainable. Having regard to the time that has elapsed, the writ petition shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously.
(5) NO order as to costs.
