Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 76 (MP)

Shivram Shukla v. Divisional Manager

2011-01-18

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra Court appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal), 2005, is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 17080/ 2010. 3: The appellant who was a conductor had filed the aforesaid writ petition assailing the order of his dismissal by the respondent. It appears that the respondent had raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground inter alia that the appellant being a workman, has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy before the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge having taken note of the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Mohini v. General, Manager, Syndicate Bank- 1995 (1) LLJ 351 (Karn.) disposed of the writ petition with the liberty to take recourse of the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, sought to argue before us that the whole proceedings was conducted ex-parte without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to participate in the proceeding. It is further submitted that after receipt of charge sheet, the appellant made a demand for supply of certain documents which were not given to him. He, therefore, sought to argue that since the proceeding was conducted behind the back of the appellant, learned Single Judge could have decided the petition on merits. 5. We are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that all the submissions involve disputed questions of fact which can only be determined after adducing evidence and therefore, cannot be gone into a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, it is not in dispute that the appellant has a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and, thus, we cannot take a different view to that 0 learned Single Judge. It is settled law that where a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is available, the High Court is not justified in entertaining the writ petition. See A.P Foods v. S. Samuel and others [ (2006) 5 SCC 469 ]. 6. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge and accordingly dismiss the writ appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy available to him. See A.P Foods v. S. Samuel and others [ (2006) 5 SCC 469 ]. 6. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge and accordingly dismiss the writ appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy available to him. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the matter, if the appellant makes an application under the Industrial Disputes Act. We are afraid that such a direction cannot be given at this stage. Besides that, we have no manner of doubt that in the event the appellant approaches the concerned authority, the same would be considered and disposed of expeditiously. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeal stands dismissed.