Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE THE HONble S. K. SEN, C. J. , THE HONble R. K. AGRAWAL, J.
U. P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
U. P. RAJYA SETU NIGAM SANYUKTA KARMCHARI SANGH - Respondents
Special Appeal 498 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/27/2002
A.K.GUPTA, Arun Prakash, P.N.RAI, V.R.Agrawal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bridge Corporation, as a State entity, is subject to the principles of natural justice and fair play in its actions, including the termination of services of its workmen.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Termination of Services - Standing Orders - Article 226 of the Constitution - Industrial Disputes Act - State Bridge Corporation - Clause L-2-12 - Collective Bargaining - Natural Justice
Fact of the Case:
The State Bridge Corporation terminated the services of 168 and 66 workmen citing continuous absence due to an alleged illegal strike. The workmen contended that the termination violated their right to collective bargaining and was in violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation, being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, was subject to the principles of natural justice and fair play. The termination without notice or opportunity of hearing was held to be in violation of these principles.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the writ petitions, the legality of the terminations under the standing orders, and the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the construction business of the Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation's actions were subject to Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. It also emphasized that the termination without following due process was a violation of the workmen's rights.
Final Decision: The Special appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge to quash the impugned orders of termination.
( 1 ) BOTH these Special Appeals have been filed by U. P. State Bridge corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and order dated 18. 5. 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge, in civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4043 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36071 of 1995, whereby the learned Single judge has allowed these writ petitions filed by the respondents writ petitioners and declared the order dated 9. 1. 1996 contained in annexure 9, order dated 30. 10. 1995 and 4. 11. 1995, contained in annexures no. 6 and 6-A to the writ petition, as void ab-initio, non-est, and quashed the same. The learned Single judge also held that the respondents-writ petitioners shall be deemed to be in service and be treated as on continuous service with all notional benefits except however, that they would not be entitled to any payment of arrears for the period during which they did not work actually. Except that each of them would be entitled to a compensation for the whole period assessed at Rs. 5,000/- each. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present Special Appeal are that in writ petition no. 36071 of 1996, service of 168 workmen were terminated by an order dated 30. 10. 1995, while in writ petition no. 4043 of 1996 services of 66 workmen were terminated by an order dated 9. 1. 1996 published in Hindi daily Dainik jagran on 12. 1. 1996. In both the cases, the termination was effected by striking off the names of the respective workmen from the rolls in terms of clause L-2-12 of the standing orders for workmen employed in the Corporation. According to the respondents-writ petitioners, they were on strike for a considerable period through sitting dharna and various other modes in support of their demands for bonus and other claims whereas as per the appellants, no notice of such dharna or strike was ever given to the appellants by the Union, on the other hand, the Union had been adopting illegal means impermissible in law despite the corporations requests to the workers to return to work. In these background, the names of two groups of workmen involved in the two writ petitions were struck off from the rolls. Before the learned Single Judge, the following preliminary objections were raised: the writ petition is not maintainable since the writ petitioners are seeking to enforce their alleged legal right arising out of standing orders which has no statutory force as has been held in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation Vs. Krishna Kant (1995 (5)SCC 75) and as such the action of the respondents cannot be amenable to writ jurisdiction;
( 2 ) THE dispute as to whether the names can be struck off on account of continuous absence of the workers is a question of fact viz. whether they were on strike of unauthorized absence could be adequately dealt with before the Labour court or Industrial Tribunal when this court is not capable of determining such question of fact, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy;
( 3 ) THE petitioners had sought for leave to amend the writ petition seeking to incorporate the prayer challenging the vires of clause L-2-12 of the standing order which was since granted on 18. 9. 1996, in writ petition no. 36071 of 1996 from which Special Appeal No. 212 of 1996 preferred by the respondents is pending before the Division Bench while this court had allowed the amendment on 17. 7. 1998 in writ petition no. 4043 of 1996 and had listed both the matters on 6. 8. 1998 and as such this writ petition cannot be maintained to challenge the vires of the said clause of the standing order;
( 4 ) SINCE certified standing order has no statuory force as has been held in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation (Supra), the vires cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the constitution and as such the writ petition in relation thereto cannot be maintained;
( 5 ) THE individual workmen had not come and the Union w
