Asha Ram Teli vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 868 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 868 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Asha Ram Teli vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur ... on 18 January, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12363/2016

Asha Ram Teli S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Teli, aged about 24 years, resident of Kotdi, District- Bhilwara, Rajasthan presently working at SBBJ Bank, Branch, Kotdi, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Through Its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Bhilwara, Rajasthan

2. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Kotri, Bhilwara

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha through VC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

18/01/2022

The present petition has been filed with the following

effective prayers:-

(i) The respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the Petitioner; and

(ii) The Respondents be directed to regularize Petitioners services; and

(iii) The Respondent be directed to pay the wages to the Petitioner as per the applicable minimum wages along with arrears Counsel for the respondents has taken a specific objection

that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the

alternative remedy available. Counsel has relied upon the

judgment reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 268 titled

as "U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. And Others vs. U.P.

                                           (2 of 3)                       [CW-12363/2016]


Rajya     Setu    Nigam       S.Karamchari                Sangh".        In   the   said

judgment, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as

under:-

11. We are of the firm opinion that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of the respondent Union at all. The dispute was an industrial dispute both within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as U.P. IDA, 1947. The rights and obligations sought to be enforced by the respondent Union in the writ petition are those created by the Industrial Disputes Act. In Premier Autobmobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke it was held that when the dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the claimant is to get adjudication under the Act. This was because the Industrial Disputes Act was made to provide "a speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employers. 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

(3 of 3) [CW-12363/2016]

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 amenable 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.

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to move before the proper

forum for redressal of his grievances. If he moves before the

forum within a period of one month from today, the period spent

by him in the present proceedings would not be counted for the

purpose of calculation of limitation.