Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
HARIVASH CHAUDHARY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 45591 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/23/2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, the writ petition should not be entertained, and the alternative remedy must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Alternative Remedy - Termination of Employment - The court dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the oral order of termination, stating that the petitioners, as muster roll employees, have an alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance before the Labour Court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were working as Chaukidars in the Flood Division, Irrigation Department at Gorakhpur, had their services terminated by oral order. They filed a writ petition seeking to quash the termination order and to be directed not to interfere in their working and to pay their salary/wages regularly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being muster roll employees, have an alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance before the Labour Court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the High Court mere on the basis of exchange of affidavits between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as muster roll employees, could seek relief through a writ petition for the termination of their employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained, citing precedents that established the principle that alternative remedy cannot be bypassed and must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of the availability of alternative remedy.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the oral order of termination with effect from 15. 10. 1999 passed by respondent no. 3, Superintending Engineer, Gandak Flood Division, Gorakhpur. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed not to interfere in the working of the petitioners as Chaukidar in the office of Executive Engineer, Flood Division, Gorakhpur and pay their salary/wages regularly.
( 3 ) THE petitioners were working in the Flood Division, Irrigation Department at Gorakhpur as Chaukidars on muster roll basis from 20. 1. 1975 continuously. Thereafter their services were terminated by oral order with effect from 15. 10. 99, hence this writ petition.
( 4 ) THE counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance before the Labour Court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is not denied by the counsel for the petitioners.
( 5 ) THE petitioners are muster roll employees. The factual controversy whether their services were terminated legally or not can only be adjudicated upon and decided by the Labour Court upon a reference after adjudication of the facts of the case by taking oral and documentary evidence, which is not feasible in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. The relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the High Court mere on the basis of exchange of affidavits between the parties. The powers of the Labour Court are very wide and therefore, not only relief of reinstatement or any other relief can be granted by the Labour Court but it can also look into the nature of relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the respondents and accordingly can mould the relief. The petitioners are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. They have an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
( 6 ) THE apex court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. , and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. , Employees Union- (2005) 6 S. C. C. 725 and U. P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R. S. Pandey and another, (2005) 107 F. L. R. 729, has held that where the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy the writ petition should not be entertained.
( 7 ) IN Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and others, (1991) 1 U. P. L. B. E. C. (2) 898 the full Bench of this Court has held that where alternate remedy is available, the writ would not be maintainable.
( 8 ) ALTERNATIVE remedy can not be bypassed and it has to be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in cases where Labour Court or Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter have been established. Alternative remedy is an absolute bar in the cases where such question of facts are to be decided by adjudication. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.
.
