Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 45 (DEL)

Prithvi Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

2007-01-10

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved with the orders dated 13.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 whereby the increments of the petitioner were withheld with cumulative effect. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity by the respondent and he was given just 72 hours to reply to the show cause notice dated 29.5.2002. On the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is that the present dispute is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and, thereforee, the remedy if at all the same lies in setting the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act in motion. I find force in the arguments of counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 whereby his increments were withheld with cumulative effect. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a workman and the respondent is an employer. The dispute raised by the petitioner does constitute an industrial dispute as envisaged under Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(K) is reproduced as under: "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any persons; 4. It is well settled law that once the statute itself provides adequate machinery of redressal, then the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union : (2005) III LLJ 512 SC . The Supreme Court after placing reliance on other judgment in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Section Karamchari Sangh has observed as follows: 8. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union : (2005) III LLJ 512 SC . The Supreme Court after placing reliance on other judgment in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Section Karamchari Sangh has observed as follows: 8. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Section Karamchari Sangh it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, thereforee, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred. .5. In another judgment decided by this Court in Sunil Kumar v. U.O.I 2000 I LLJ, the Single Judge of this Court in the similar facts and circumstances of the case has also relegated the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference is made to paras 20 and 21 of the said judgment which are read as under: 20. These questions can be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and the questions raised by the petitioners are questions of fact and the claims of the petitioners are disputed by the third respondent. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above by Mr.Jagjit Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in the instant writ petitions. 21. Under these circumstances, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the case of petitioners. I am of the view that the petitioners have to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Granting that liberty to the petitioners, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 6. 21. Under these circumstances, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the case of petitioners. I am of the view that the petitioners have to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Granting that liberty to the petitioners, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 6. There are factual disputes involved between the parties and the dispute raised by the petitioner is an industrial dispute and, thereforee, it would be appropriate if the petitioner sets the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in motion. Consequently, the petitioner is given liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. If the petitioner moves under Industrial Disputes Act, the Court shall reasonably consider the request of the petitioner for condoning the delay. 7. As a result of this, the petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.