Delhi High Court
Anit Kumar S/O Shri M. Lal vs The Chairman, Tariff Authority ... on 28 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 132 (2006) DLT 405
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition petitioner has made following prayer:
Quash and set aside the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 09.10.2000 with all consequential benefits of reinstatement in the services as if the termination dated 09.10.2000 has never taken place and with the continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner has claimed the he was working as a casual worker while his services were terminated on 9th October, 2000 by the respondent but the persons engaged much later to him were retained. He also alleged that after termination of his services respondent engaged fresh casual labour in the department to look after the work previously done by the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the petition shows that petitioner has raised an industrial dispute by way of this writ petition. It is settled law that where specific statutory remedy is available the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution. In Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees Union 2005 SCC 2005 (L&S) 899, Supreme Court observed as under:
7 In a catena of decisions it has been held that a 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.
8 In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh 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 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. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke , Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant , Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred .
9 In Rajasthan SRTC case it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 91-92, para 28)
[A] speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employees. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedures followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and remake the contracts, settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amendable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a Civil Court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them.
4. The petitioner should have approached appropriate Government and raised industrial dispute. By way of a writ petition, petitioner cannot seek relief agitating disputed questions of fact. This Court cannot entertain a writ petition raising disputed questions of fact, when alternate remedy is available. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
