UNION OF INDIA Vs. KALI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a decision of a learned single Judge allowing the petition and quashing the notice of retrenchment of the petitioner contained in annexure 11 to the writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a casual labourer in the Locomotive Workshop, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow on 1st July, 1964 which is an industrial establishment. It was not disputed that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also governed his employment. He had been working in the said workshop without any break and had completed more than three years of service. However, on 12-5-1969 the petitioner- respondent was served with a notice of retrenchment, Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The validity of that notice was challenged, inter alias, on the ground that no retrenchment compensation had been paid to the petitioner respondent in terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Several other grounds were also taken in the writ petition challenging the said notice but they were not pressed before the learned single Judge. It was not in dispute that no retrenchment compensation had been paid to the petitioner-respondent while serving him with the impugned notice. Obviously, therefore, there had been a non-compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The learned single Judge, therefore, quashed the said notice.

(3.) It was, however, urged before him, and the point has also been reiterated before us in appeal, that the petitioner-respondent should have taken recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and asked the Government concerned to make a reference raising industrial dispute and as that was not done, the petition was not maintainable inasmuch as alternative remedy available to the petitioner was not exhausted. We find force in the contention. The point in issue is concluded by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 29 of 1975- The Divisional Engineer, Headquarters, Northern Railway, Lucknow v. Durgesh Kumar(1), decided on 27-4-1976. After reviewing the entire law on the point the Division Bench in that Special Appeal had observed that since the right to be enforced by the petitioner is a right created under the Act, the remedy for its enforcement is by way of raising an industrial dispute which the appropriate Government has the power to refer under Section 10(1) of the Act to the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be. The case also arose out of a notice of retrenchment given to the respondent of that appeal which was sought to be quashed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The Division Bench held that as an alternative remedy was available to the workman concerned, it was not proper to grant relief to him in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, we are in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Division Bench in that case.