Court No. - 14 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5228 of 1991 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Dangwal & Others Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam & Thr Its M.D. Lucknow & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.C.Dhasmana Respondent Counsel :- C S C Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri S C Dhasmana learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rajesh Pathak learned counsel for the opposite parties.
The petition has not been admitted.
The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 31.7.1991 and
01.08.1991 collectively filed as Annexures 6 to 14 terminating the
services of the petitioner sonly on the ground that the procedure
prescribed under Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
pertaining to retrenchment has not been followed. The petitioners,
therefore, are challenging the impugned order on the ground of
violation of labour laws and since there is a statutory adjudicatory
forum provided therein for redressal of such grievance, the proper
remedy lies by raising an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in U.P.
Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005) 8 SCC 264
and following its earlier judgement in U.P. State Bridge
Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh (2004) 4 SCC 268 the Apex Court held as
under :
“In a catena of decisions it has been held that writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is
available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.”
In view of above, in absence of any valid reason for not relegating
the petitioners to avail the said remedy, is not a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy.
Interim order, if any, is vacated.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010/Pravin