Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/509/2022 on 17 May, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 509 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Tyagi, petitioner
in person.
Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Petitioner was appointed in Roorkee
Cement Works, which is a unit of Ultra
Tech Cement Ltd. In this writ petition, he
has challenged the order dated
23.03.2021 whereby he has been
dismissed from service. He has also
sought a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to take work from him
in the same capacity and in the same
establishment, where he was serving
before passing of the order dated
23.03.2021 and 16.01.2021. The order
dated 16.01.2021 is on record as
Annexure No.5 to the writ petition.
Perusal thereof reveals that
petitioner was transferred from Roorkee
Cement Works to Kotputli Cement Works
with a further direction to join duties at
the transferred place, on 28.01.2021.
From perusal of Annexure No. 19 to
the writ petition, it is revealed that
petitioner had raised industrial dispute
regarding his dismissal/termination from
service and the Central Government vide
order dated 06.12.2021 has referred the
dispute for adjudication to C.G.I.T-cum-
Labour Court, No-1, Chandigarh for
adjudication.
Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for
respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that
petitioner is a Workman and the dispute
raised by him has now been referred for
adjudication to C.G.I.T-cum-Labour
Court, No-1, Chandigarh, therefore, the
present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as petitioner cannot
simultaneously, approach two forums for
the same relief. He further submits that
since petitioner is employee of a private
company, which is not State under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, present writ petition is not
maintainable.
This Court finds substance in the
submission made on behalf of learned
counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Since petitioner is a Workman and
according to him, provision of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 have been violated
while passing order of dismissal against
him, therefore, the only remedy
available to the petitioner would be to
approach the forum available under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Scooters India and Others Vs. Vijai
E.V. Eldred (1998) 6 SCC 549, while
setting aside the judgment passed by
High Court in favour of Workman of
Scooters India Limited held as follows:-
"2. The above facts alone are sufficient to
indicate that there was no occasion for the High
Court to entertain the writ petition directly for
adjudication of an industrial dispute involving
the termination of disputed questions of fact for
which remedy under the industrial laws was
available to the workman. That apart, the writ
petition was filed more than 6 years after the
date on which the cause of action is said to
have arisen and there being no cogent
explanation for the delay, the writ petition
should have been dismissed on the ground of
laches alone. It is also extraordinary for the
High Court to have held clause 9.3.12 of the
standing orders as invalid. Learned counsel for
the respondent rightly made no attempt to
support this part of the High Court's order. In
view of the fact that we are setting aside the
High Court's judgment, we need not deal with
this aspect in detail."
In view of the aforesaid legal
position, this Court is not inclined to
entertain this writ petition, in which
petitioner has challenged the order,
whereby he has been dismissed from his
service.
Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the appropriate forum.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
17.05.2022
Shubham
`
