SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut (S) Nigam Limited & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5667 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2815 of 2020)
Decided On : 13-09-2021
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - Section 35 – Appeal - Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court - Respondent herein raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination - Dispute was referred to labour court - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, passed an award holding that termination order is illegal - Labour Court directed reinstatement of respondent with full back wages - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and award passed by Labour Court, in case, original petitioners - appellants herein preferred Writ Petition before High Court of Allahabad – Held, judicial order was passed by High Court of Allahabad permitting appellants to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before appropriate court and thereafter when appellants preferred writ petition before High Court, learned Single Judge of High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon judicial order passed by Coordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court - Single Judge of High Court was not acting as an appellate court against judicial order passed by High Court of Allahabad permitting appellants to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect order passed by Coordinate Bench and more particularly judicial order passed by Coordinate Bench of High Court, in present case Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it - Therefore observations made by High Court in impugned order on judicial order passed by learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court permitting appellants to withdraw writ petition pending before it with liberty to file fresh writ petition before appropriate court is absolutely unwarranted and is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2014 (M/S) by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein without entering into the merits of the case, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
That the respondent herein raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination dated 15.06.1996. The dispute was referred to the labour court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun, passed an award dated 31.05.1997 holding that the termination order is illegal. The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in case No.180 of 1996, the original petitioners - appellants herein preferred Writ Petition No.6898 of 1997 before the High Court of Allahabad. That the High Court of Allahabad passed a conditional interim order staying the execution of award and on condition to deposit the entire back wages before the Labour Court. The appellant complied with the same and deposited the amount of back wages. That during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State of Uttarakhand came to be created and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Dehradun came within the jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand.
2.1 In that view of the matter and in view of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the proceedings pending before the High Court at Allahabad were required to be transferred to the High Court having jurisdiction, in the present case the High Court of Uttarakhand. However, writ petition No.6898 of 1997 was not transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad for whatever reason. Therefore when writ petition No.6898 of 1997 though was required to be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand as what was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad was the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun, the jurisdiction of which subsequently vested with the High Court of Uttarakhand, came up for hearing before the Allahabad High Court on 24.04.2014 and the Allahabad High Court was of the view that since the award has been passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun and therefore the jurisdiction does not lie with the High Court of Allahabad and therefore permitted the appellants herein original writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition before the appropriate court i.e. High Court of Uttarakhand. That thereafter the appellants herein preferred the present writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand which was numbered as writ petition No.1314 of 2014, challenging the award dated 31.05.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in case No.180 of 1996. That thereafter the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 26.11.2019. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition without entering into the merits of the case solely on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the power to transfer the case lie with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad and therefore the Coordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court was not justified in granting liberty to the appellants herein – original writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand observed that the liberty granted by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to fil
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
A court or tribunal must decide a pending application for vacation of an interim stay before initiating or insisting upon compliance under the threat of contempt. Preemptively enforcing an interim or....
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
Nomenclature of the petition or the nature of relief sought for is not the only determining factor, but the nature of power available to be invoked before the High Court is one such important guiding....
The court established that a reference made by the State Government under the UPID Act to the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of a workman is valid, and the maintainability of a special appeal i....
Writ Petition – When a number of issues/grounds are raised in writ petition, there is duty cast upon High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order.
The Labour Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction over the dispute as the decision to terminate the workman was made at the head office located there, despite the workman being posted in Tirupur.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 91(1) of the U.P. Reorganization Act in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand Public Services T....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.