1. Denial of work — Writ petition dismissed for alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act — Appeal dismissed by Division Bench due to significant delay. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1567
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Rajeev Kumar – Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9140 of 2017 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18174 of 2017) (@ Diary Nos. 15212 of 2017)
Decided On : 17-07-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:P.D. Sharma, Advocate
For the Petitioners:P.D. Sharma, Advocate
Granting liberty to the appellant to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per the Industrial Disputes Act
Headnote:
Delay condoned - Denial of work - The appellant approached the High Court aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Corporation. The High Court initially granted interim relief but subsequently disposed of the writ petition, holding that the remedy open to the appellant is to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per the Industrial Disputes Act. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal due to a delay of more than eleven years. The appellant was granted liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1072 of 2005.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant approached the High Court aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Corporation. The High Court initially granted interim relief but subsequently disposed of the writ petition, holding that the remedy open to the appellant is to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant was granted liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1072 of 2005. The appeal was disposed of, making it clear that in case the appellant takes recourse to the remedy within a period of two months, the same may not be dismissed by the Forum on the ground of delay.
Issues: Delay in approaching the High Court, denial of work, alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant was granted liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1072 of 2005.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, making it clear that in case the appellant takes recourse to the remedy within a period of two months, the same may not be dismissed by the Forum on the ground of delay.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that the judgment was not communicated, resulting in a substantial delay in filing the appeal. (Para 5 )
3. The court observed that in the interest of justice, the appellant should be permitted to pursue the alternative remedy previously identified. (Para 6 )
4. In the interest of justice, a party may be granted liberty to pursue an alternative remedy, with directions to the forum to ignore delay. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal disposed of granting liberty to pursue the alternative remedy within two months, with directions that the forum shall not dismiss it for delay. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can a party be granted liberty to pursue an alternative remedy despite a significant delay in filing an appeal?
Yes, in the interest of justice, the court may grant liberty to take recourse to an alternative remedy, directing that the forum should not dismiss the claim on the ground of delay. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the effect of a writ petition being dismissed on the grounds of an available alternative remedy?
The petitioner must take recourse to the specific alternative remedy provided by the relevant statute, such as the Industrial Disputes Act, rather than continuing the writ proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. How does the court treat delays caused by the non-communication of a judgment?
The court may condone the delay or grant liberty to pursue alternative remedies in the interest of justice if the party was not informed of the judgment. (Para 5 , 6 )
JUDGMENT :
Kurian Joseph, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant approached the High Court, aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Corporation.
4. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice, in our view.
5. It appears that the appellant has approached the High Court challenging the denial of work and initially the appellant was granted an interim relief. However, the writ petition was subsequently disposed of by holding that the remedy open to the appellant is to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per Industrial Disputes Act. According to the appellant, unfortunately the judgment was not communicated to him and, therefore, there was considerable delay in approaching the High Court, in appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding that there is a huge delay of more than eleven years in approaching the Division Bench.
6. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the appellant, in the interest of justice, should be granted liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1072 of 2005, which reads as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the judgment dated 27.7.2004 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.3281 of 2003 ( Ved Bhushan v. The Divisional Manager/Senior Manager, L.I.C. Branch Office Muzaffarnagar ). He contends that the facts of the present writ petition are covered by the aforesaid judgment under which the petitioner has alternative remedy.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs."
7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of making it clear that in case the appellant takes recourse to the remedy, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in view of the decision in Ved Bhushan v. The Divisional Manager/Senior Manager, L.I.C. Branch Officer Muzaffarnagar, within a period of two months from today, the same may not be dismissed by the Forum on the ground of delay.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
