Jharkhand High Court
Satyendra Kumar Sinha vs The Employer In Relation To The ... on 3 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(L) No. 1163 of 2011
Satyendra Kumar Sinha .... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
The Employer in relation to the Management of Canara Bank & Anr.
.. ... ... Respondents
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent-Bank : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
......
16/ 03.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar has submitted that
petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition against the award dated
24.11.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.229 of 2000, whereby the reference
made under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with regard
to "whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing the
services of Shri Satyendra Kumar Sinha, Clerk w.e.f. 28.07.1998 is justified ? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar has further submitted
that without initiating proper enquiry, the impugned order has been passed, which
may be set aside in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad Etc. Vs. B. Karunakar Etc. reported in
(1993) 4 SCC 727 as well as the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Yogendra Tiwari & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Others reported in 2016 SCC Online Jhar 2770.
Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank, Mr. P.A.S. Pati has serious
preliminary objection that the allegation and charge was with regard to the posting
of petitioner in the Canara Bank, District of Siwan, which is in the State of Bihar.
Even though the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was not working in the
State of Bihar, at that relevant time when Reference No.229 of 2000 was made,
but the award can be assailed before the Hon'ble Court having competent
jurisdiction, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2007) 6
SCC 769, paras 13 and 14, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"13.The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over all the three
States. In all the three States there are High Courts. In the event, the aggrieved person is
treated to be the dominus litus, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one
or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the
authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the
authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High
Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High
Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals
outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An
assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the
jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it
and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid
down by the High Court at Bombay.
14. Furthermore, when an appeal is provided under a statute, Parliament must have
thought of one High Court. It is a different matter that by way of necessity, a Tribunal
may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States but it does not appeal to any
reason that Parliament intended, despite providing for an appeal before the High
Court, that appeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweet will of the
party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal."
Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank has thus, submitted that petitioner
may avail legal remedy as per cause of action before the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Patna even though the award has been passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in view of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court.
Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar has
submitted that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition so
as to avail legal remedy available under the law before the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Patna, but it may be observed that such delay is not because of the
laches on the part of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty
to the petitioner to approach before the competent court of law having jurisdiction.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
