Dismissed

Udai Chand v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 May 2023CW/5938/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging verbal termination of service, holding it not maintainable under Article 226 due to the availability of alternative remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and presence of factual disputes. Liberty was granted to approach the Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed; liberty granted to avail alternative remedy; authorities directed to decide claim within three months.

Udai Chand Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010102]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5938/1998

¶4

Udai Chand Son Of Shri Kalu Ram, Resident Of Behind Minarwa Cinema, Near Bagri Wali Bagichi, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati R, Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr, Jai Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Raghav-AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

10/05/2023

¶13

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶14

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to;i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the verbal removal order dated 01.10.1998 be declared illegal and set aside and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service;

¶15

ii) Issue any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble court deems just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner and the cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the humble petitioner;”

[2023/RJJP/010102]

[CW-5938/1998]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Sweeper since 10.04.1992 and the services of the petitioner were terminated by verbally on 01.10.1998 without issuing any notice or making any payment of compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner rendered his service on regular basis, hence the verbal termination order dated 01.10.1998 be declared as illegal and liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was not appointed on regular basis and he was performing his duties on part time basis. He further submitted that disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under the writ jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the verbal termination order, he is at liberty to approach the Labour Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in the case of

¶21

Gopi Lal Teli Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1995 (2)

¶22

WLC 1 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶24

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is challenging his verbal termination order dated 01.10.1998 by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar

[2023/RJJP/010102]

[CW-5938/1998]

(3 of 4)

controversy came before this Court in the case of Gopi Lal Teli Vs. The State of Rajsthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011/1990 decided on 01.03.1995 wherein the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, came and following questions were framed and referred to the Larger Bench of this court for adjudication.

¶29

“Whether a writ petition for violation of provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or violation of the principles of natural justice should be directly entertained as a matter of course ignoring statutory remedy provided by that Act?”

¶30

5.1 Answering the above Reference the Larger Bench of this Court has held that in cases of violation of provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and violation of principles of natural justice, the normal course is to pursue the remedy provided under the Act and power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases should be sparingly exercised.

¶31

In view of the proposition as laid down by the Larger Bench of this court in the case of Gopi Lal Teli (Supra) , this petition is not maintainable before this Court, hence the same is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶32

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him in accordance with law. 8. Before parting with the order, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities/Tribunal/Labour Court to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of the claim petition, after affording the opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/010102]

[CW-5938/1998]