AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 3316 of 2020

Surjeet Singh Sindhu S/o Late Harbhajan Singh Sindhu Aged About 41

Years Working As Line Paricharak Category- Ii, Purena Zone, Nagar

Sambhag Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Energy, New

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its

Managing Director Having Its Head Quarter At Gudiyari Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd,

Office At New Purena Basti Road 33/11 Beside K.V. Upkendra Purena,

Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company

Ltd, City Circle-I, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate

For Respondent No.1

: Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL

For Respondent No. 2 to 4

: Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

05.09.2022

1. The petitioner who is working as Attended Grade-II (Paricharak Category-II)

(Line) with Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd was imposed

with punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect

vide its order dated 14.03.2018, against which he has preferred an appeal

before the Executive Engineer, City Division South, Chhattisgarh State Power

Distribution Limited Company, Raipur who vide order dated 12.03.2020 has

rejected the said appeal. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

assailing both the orders before this Court.

2

2. It is not in dispute that the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution

Company is Schedule industry as defined under the Chhattisgarh

Industrial Relation Act., 1960. The respondent industry falls within item 3

of the Schedule as notified by the State of Chhattisgarh and the petitioner

being an employee as defined 2(13) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial

Relation Act. There is complete mechanism which has been prescribed

under the Act of 1960 for redressing the grievance of the employees. As

such, the petitioner being an employee and the respondent being

schedule industry, the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of

filing an application before the Labour Court which is available to him.

Thus it is not in dispute that the petitioner has alternative efficacious

remedy available to him. It is also not in dispute that disputed facts are

involved in the case which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. The

question with regard to maintaibility of the writ petition under the Labour

Law where disputed facts are involved has come up for consideration

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Works

Construction Ltd. And Another vs. Hindustan Steel Works

Construction Ltd. Employees Union {2005 6 SCC 725}, wherein

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 8, which reads as under

In UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd and Ors v.

U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh

(2004 (4) SCC 268), it was held that when the

dispute relates to enforcement of a right or

obligation under the statute and specific

remedy is, therefore, provided under the

statute, the High Court should not deviate

from the general view and interfere under

Article 226 except when a very strong case is

made out for making a departure. The person

who insists upon such remedy can avail of

the process as provided under the statute. To

same effect are the decisions in Premier

Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalkar Shantarum

Wadke 1976 (1) SCC 496), Rajasthan SRTC

3

v. Krishn