S M KAMAL Vs. PALACE THEATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner ' was at the relevant time employed as Manager in the Palace THEatre, Allahabad. His services were terminated by an order dated 3-8-1984 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Managing Partner of the THEatre. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the above order is hit by the provisions of Section 73 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. THE section reads :

(3.) WE must, however, hasten to add that to exclude the present writ petition from the scope of Article 226 does not imply either directly or indirectly a rejection of the petitioner's case on merits. Law, although ultimately and substantially the mouthpiece of justice, is nevertheless not wholly untrammelled by technical rules, both of procedure and jurisdiction which in their turn emanate from the practical and imperative necessity of determining the appropriate forum for the redress of distinct kinds of grievances which may be remedied under the law. Merely because a relief may be denied to a petitioner who approaches the High Court under Article 226, it does not follow either that his case is devoid of merits or that he is left without a remedy. A misconception seems to have gained ground that since in a welfare State it is the Government which is the ultimate custodian of the legal rights of citizens, if an aggrieved petitioner cannot succesfully invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, his case stands condemned on merits. Such misconception cannot be given the seal of judicial approval.