JYOTI RASTOGI Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The appellants challenged the Circular dated 8.5.1978 by filing a writ petition, which was admitted on 31.10.1985. The affidavits were exchanged, but when the petition came up for hearing on 3.4.1997, the same was dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the appellants. It need not be reiterated that once a petition has been entertained and affidavits have been exchanged, particularly when the petition remained pending for a considerable long period, in this case for about fourteen years, there would be little justification for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The plea of the respondents that interpretation sought to be made by the Circular concerned is not correct, is a plea which could be considered by this Court. Since the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy after about fourteen years of its filing, though it was admitted and affidavits had been exchanged, we do not find it necessary to relegate the appellants to the alternative forum. We also take note of the fact that the special appeal was filed in the year 1997 and it has come up for hearing after about twelve years. Now, in case the appellants are relegated to the remedy of Industrial Tribunal, it would be very hard and in fact, injustice to them, who have acted on the legal advice given to them. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number and shall be listed before the Bench having jurisdiction to decide the same on merit as early as possible.