Order on Board

05.09.2022

1. The petitioner who was working as Office Attended Grade-I with Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd was imposed with punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect vide its order dated 15.10.2015 against which he has preferred an appeal before the Deputy General Manager (Human Resources)-3 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Limited Company, Raipur who vide order dated 03.06.2022 has rejected the said appeal. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing both the orders before this Court.

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 v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr. (2002) (2) SCC 542) and in Scooters India and Ors.

v. Vijai V. Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549).

Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable in veiw of alternative statutory remedy available under the Chhattisgrarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 and on the count disputed facts are involved which can be very well ascertained by the learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the imposition of punishment which is defined in scheduled II of the Act for the subject on which the labour Court has jurisdiction to decide. The petitioner can very well file an application under Section 31 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act raising his grievances. Section 62 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act provides commencement of proceedings and as per section 62(I) in respect of a dispute falling under clause (a) of paragraph (A) of sub section 1 of section 61 within two years from the date of the dispute. As per Section 61 of the Act, the labour Court shall have power to decide dispute regarding which application has been made to it under sub section 3 of section 31 of the Act. The punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner falls within the item (1) of schedule II of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act are extracted below:-

4. Section 1 (3) & (4) of the A