LIYAQAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Peon but vide letter dated 15.9.1991, he was directed to work as Tractor Driver. He was confirmed as such w.e.f. 27.5.1995 but his grievance is that he has not been paid the salary of driver by the respondents. He also preferrred Civil Misc. Writ No. 39244 of 2006 before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2006 with the direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the aforesaid order. The claim of the petitioner has been decided against him vide impugned order dated 28.11.2006.

(2.) Normally questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for this Court to tale oral and documentary evidence undere Article 226 of the Constitution in every case as to whether impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for salary of the post of driver suffers from any error of fact. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to get the dispute adjudicated on facts by cogent oral and documentary evidence.

(3.) It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.