Smt. Urmila Massy vs U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its Managing ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20984 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26170 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila Massy
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its Managing Director And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Mishra,SC
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for UPSRTC (respondent nos. 2 and 3).

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2014 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) and order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the respondent no.3. (Annexure no. 6 to the Writ Petition)."

Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for UPSRTC submits that the petitioner is a workman, hence has statutory remedy of approaching the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his contention, 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,1947.

Relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 13.1.2021 passed in Rajit Ram Yadav (supra) is quoted as under:-

"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."

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the liberty to the petitioner to prefer her claim before the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 who shall made an endeavor to dispose of the adjudication proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

Akbar