Yogendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 20670 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18294 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Agarwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. This petition had been initially filed praying for quashing of the show cause notice dated 15.10.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, a termination order had been passed on 7.11.2022 by the respondent no. 3.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting-respondents has pointed out that since the petitioner is a workman, appropriate remedy would be to file his claim before the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has placed reliance upon an order passed by coordinate Bench on 13.1.2021 in Writ-A No. 254 of 2021 (Rajit Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), where, this Court had dismissed such writ petition of similarly situated employee on the grounds of statutory remedy being available under the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. This Court has perused the judgement and order dated 13.1.2021 passed in the case of Rajit Ram Yadav (supra). The relevant extract of such order is being quoted hereinbelow :

"It is admitted that petitioner is employed in the respondent-corporation which falls within the ambit of 'industry' and the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the industrial adjudicator under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.

So far as the jurisdiction of industrial adjudicator is concerned, law is settled that it has power to examine the legality of domestic inquiry and in the event such inquiry is found unfair or even if no inquiry is held, yet the labour court would have jurisdiction to independently examine the merits of the charge and return a finding as to whether the guilt is established or not? Power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough and the law in that regard has been settled by a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In view of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 the industrial adjudicator would be entitled to examine merits of the charges levelled and independently return its finding on the question whether charges are established or not? That being the position in law it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy available before the industrial adjudicator instead of directly entertaining challenge to the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings."

5. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, who shall decide the dispute raised by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

SA