MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Pump Operator, was working on purely temporary basis. His services were terminated by the Sectional Officer, in-charge, vide his letter dated 29th September, 1981, with effect from 30th September, 1981. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the said order. The petitioner came up for motion hearing on 20th July, 1982. On the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. Rajappa 1978-II L. L. J. 73, notice of motion was issued by the Bench. In response to that notice the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted. At the time of final motion hearing, one of the points that arose for consideration was that the present petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have first availed of the alternative remedy under the Act by claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that remedy under the Act was neither adequate nor speedy nor efficacious and that the petition deserved to be decided on merits by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, had relied on a judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1983) 1 Serv. LR 38, wherein, on this aspect of the matter, it has been observed, thus: As regards the first preliminary objection, it may be observed that petitioners could not have claimed reference of their dispute under Section 10 of the Act as a matter of right and, therefore, provisions of Section 10 cannot be considered to be providing an alternative remedy of the kind which may be considered as bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. The aforesaid view had already found favour with Delhi High Court in Malkhan Singh v. Union of India 1981-II L. L. J. 174.

(2.) THE Bench, on consideration of the entire matter, found itself unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. Consequently, the petition was admitted and ordered to be heard by a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.

(3.) THE short question that falls for our consideration may be formulated thus: Whether the mode of redress provided to a workman by claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Act, can be regarded as an alternative remedy so as to ordinarily bar the filing of a writ petition.