Supreme Court of India

U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD.versusR.S. PANDEY AND ANR.

Citation: 2005 INSC 447
Decided: 26 September 2005
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Holding

A writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when an efficacious statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as a breach of natural justice are shown; the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition and the dismissal order was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd., challenged a Allahabad High Court order that quashed the dismissal of workmen R.S. Pandey and another on the ground that the dismissal was effected before receipt of the show‑cause reply. The High Court had entertained a writ petition under Article 226 despite the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when a statutory remedy is available unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as a breach of natural justice. It found that the dismissal order violated principles of natural justice because the show‑cause reply was not considered, and that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order, directed a fresh departmental enquiry from the stage of service of the show‑cause notice, and ordered reinstatement of the employee without back wages, leaving any further entitlement to be decided after the enquiry.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available.
Whether the dismissal order passed before receipt of the employee's reply to the show‑cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the dismissal order and what relief is appropriate under the statutory scheme.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 11-A, s. 74, s. 75
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

Article 226writ jurisdictionindustrial disputes actexhaustion of statutory remediesnatural justiceshow cause noticedisciplinary enquiryreinstatementback wagesalternative remedy

Judgment

U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. A
v.
R.S. PANDEY AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2005

(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, I 950 :

Article 226-Writ petition-Judicial review-Scope and-ambit of-
Labour matters-Interference-Held: A writ petition under Art. 226 should C
not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the ID Act,
1947 unless exceptional circumstances are made out-However, the High
Court's entertaining the writ petition notWithstanding the existence of an
alternative remedy would not be interfered with unless the reasons are found
to be palpably unsound and irrational-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-U.P. D
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Labour Law:

Domestic/Departmental enquiry-Dismissal order-Delinquent
employee dismissed before receipt of the reply to show cause notice-High E
Court quashed the dismissal order-Correctness of-Held: Fresh enquiry
shall be held from the stage of service ofshow cause notice and consideration
of the reply, if any, of the delinquent employee-Delinquent employee is
reinstated in service without any back wages and his reinstatement is only
for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings-His entitlements,
if any, would depend upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings-High F
Court's judgment set aside.

The respondent while working in the appellant's concern was served
with a show cause notice but the appellant terminated the services of the
respondent before receipt of the reply to the show cause notice. The High G
Court quashed the dismissal order notwithstanding the existence of
efficacious, alternative and statutory remedies under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 read with U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that
the final order was passed before the receipt of the show cause reply. Hence
the appeal.
603 H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and
the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is
satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief
elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power
B if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of
natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.
[610-A-B)

State of Himacha/ Pradesh v. Mis. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005]
6 SCC 499, K.S. Rashid v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR (1954)
C SC 207, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR (1955) SC 425, Union of
lndiav. TR. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882,StateofU.P. v. Mohammad Noah, AIR
(1958) SC 86, Mis. K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras,
AIR (1966) SC 1089, State ofMP. v. Bhailal Bhaj, AIR (1964) SC 1006, N. T
Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR (1959) SC 422, Municipal Council
D v. Kamal Kumar, AIR (1965) SC 1321, Si/iguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das,
AIR (1984) SC 653, S./. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, AIR (1988) SC 616,
R.S.R.TC. v. Krishna Kant, AIR (1995) SC 1715, Kera/a State Electricity
Board v. Kurien E. Ka/at hi/, AIR (2000) SC 2573, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu
v. S. Chellappan, (20001 7 SCC 695, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State ofAndhra
Pradesh, (20011 6 SCC 634, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri
E Maharaj-Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanatha v. State of Maharashtra, [i°OOII
8 SCC 509, Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484, G.K.N.
Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, (200311 SCC 72, Harbans Lal Sahnia v. !ndian
Oil Corporation Ltd., 12003] 2 SCC 107, G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman &
Raman Ltd., AIR (1952) SC 192, Assistant Collector of Central Excise v.
F Dunlop India Ltd., AIR (1985) SC 330, Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of
Tripura, AIR (1999) SC 294, Shiygonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR (1999) SC 2281, C.A. Abraham v. ITO, AIR (1961) SC 609, Titaghur Paper
Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR (1983) SC 603, H.B. Gandhi v. Mis.
Gopinath and Sons, (19921 Supp. 2 SCC 312, Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR (1999) SC 22, Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v.
G State of Bihar, AIR (1999) SC 74, Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (199911 SCC
209; Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (20011 6 SCC 569 and Ram
and Shyam Co. v. State of Hmyana, AIR (1985) SC ll47, referred to.

2.1. In the instant case, the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons
as to why they thought that the alternate remedy would not be efficacious.
H Though the High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet
U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. v. R.S. PANDEY 605
it felt that the alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ A
petition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to
why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper
for this Court to consider the question again. (611-D-E)

2.2. ,When the High Court had entertained a writ petition
notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy this Court while B
dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be
raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition
is found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Hence the High Court's
judgment is not vulnerable on the ground that the alternative remedy was not
availed. [611-E-F-G]
c
First Income Tax Officer v. Mis. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., (1966) 3 SCR
84, State of UP. v. Mis. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, [1977) 2 SCC 724 and L.
I
Hirday Narain v. ITO, AIR (1971) SC 33, relied on. •
R. v. Hillington, London Borough Council, (1974) 1QB720 and Hanson D
v. Church Commissioner, (1978) QB 823, referred to.

2.3. However, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should
not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 read with U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless
exceptional circumstances·~re made out. [613-C] E
3.1. When the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation
under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, 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 a remedy can avail of the process as provided F
under the statute. [613-D-E)

3.2. Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court was
not justified in entertaining the writ petition. Usually when the writ petition
is entertained notwithstandh1g availability ohlll alternative remedy and issues
are decided on merits, this Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground of G
availability of an alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case have
special features, which warrant interference. [614-G-H)

UP. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. UP. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh, (2004] 4 SCC 268, Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

.A Shantaram Wadke, (1976] I SCC 496, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant,
[1995] 5 SCC 75, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation
ofAhmedabad, [2002] 2 SCC 542, Scooters India v. Vijai V. Eldred, [1998] 8
SCC 549, Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., [1964] 6 SCR
913 and Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd v. Hindustan Steel Works
B Construction Ltd Employees' Union, (2005) 6 SCALE 430, relied on.

4. The High Court's direction is set aside and it is directed that a fresh
enquiry shall be completed by starting from the stage of service of show cause
notice and consideration of the reply, if any, filed in accordance with the
standing orders holding the field. Respondent No. 1 shall be reinstated in
C service but without any back wages and other service benefits and his
reinstatement shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental
proceedings. His entitlements, if any, would be adjudicated by the authorities
depending upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings. (616-8-C-D]
f
.
Managing Director, EC/l v. B. Karunakar, (1993] 4 SCC 737, relied
D on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1346 of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2002 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 743 of 1996.
E
M.N. Rao, Chandra Kant Nayak, Santosh Kumar and Atishi Dipankar
with him for the Appellant.

L. Nageshwar Rao, K.V. Vishwanathan, Praveen Pandey, Kranthi Kiran,
Mrs. P. Radha Rani and D. Mahesh Babu with him for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARI.TIT PASA YAT, J. Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer')
calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court dismissing Special Appeal filed by the appellant. The
G Special Appeal was filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge who had questioned the orders
of termination in respect of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The main stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the writ
petition filed by the respondents should not be entertained as they had
H efficacious, alternative and statutory remedy provided under the Industrial
U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. v. R.S. PANDEY [PASAYA T, J.] 607
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') read with U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, A
1947 (in short the 'U.P Act').

The baskground facts are as follows:
1j
The respondents while working in the appellant's concern made claims
1
of 15% of the basic pay as an interim relief as was being paid to the officers B
and clerical staff at the Headquarters of the appellant's concern, as according
to them there 1t"as no justifiable reason for refusing the said relief to the staff
at some units,.The writ petition was filed (including amended prayers), inter
alia, with the .~ollowing prayers: ·•
I
(a) to'issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from C
transfe~ing, terminating the services of the petitioners and harassing
and d~hsing any harm to petitioners;

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay
15% of the basic pay as interim relief and fixed D.A. of Rs. 100 to the
clerical staff of the Maunath Bhanjan Unit Mills; D
(c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this
Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of tJ,ie
case; and

(d) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners against the E
contesting respondents.

It is to be noted that five applications for amendments were filed and
some of them were allowed by the High Court. Right from the beginning, the
appellant was questioning maintainability of the writ petition as according to
it statutory remedies were available and in the writ petition itself the writ F
petitioners accepted that the standing orders governing the service conditions
were in operation. By one of the amendments, the order of dismissal passed
was permitted to be questioned. So far as the respondent No. I is concerned,
the stand was that the notice of show cause was alleged to have been refused
by him when sent by the appellant on 21.11.1987. The same show cause G
notice was sent on 23 .11.1987 by registered post which was received by the
respondent No. I on 26.11.1987. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) sent
his reply to the show cause notice dated 26.11.1987 which was received by
the appellant on 2.12.1987. But the order of dismissal was passed on 1.12.1987.
Learned Single Judge rejected the plea relating to existence of alternative
remedy and only on the ground that the final order was passed before the H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A receipt of the show cause reply, quashed the proceedings.
So far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, it was held that the notice
was given by publishing in the news item on the purported ground that he
did not join the transferred post. The High Court held that the show cai1se
notice containing the allegation of non-joining was not established to have
B been served.

Learned Single Judge noted that the writ petition was pending for great
length of time and, therefore, it would not be legal and proper to dismiss the
writ petition. He did not find substance in the plea that had the writ petitioners
C availed a statutory remedy under the Act and the U.P. Act, the employer
would have got the opportunity to show that the departmental proceedings
were fair by adducing evidence in terms of Section 11-A of the Act. By filing
writ petition according to the appellant, such a statutory right was rendered
ineffective.

D In the Special Appeal filed before the Division Bench, the stands taken
were re-iterated. It was specifically pointed out that the long pendency of the
writ petition was primarily on account of the fact that several amendments
were sought for and prayers for new reliefs were introduced. It was further
submitted that even if the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court comes to
the conclusion that domestic enquiry is vitiated, the employer has a statutory
E right to lead evidence to show that the order of termination is justified on the
materials which may be placed on record. This right was being denied by the
workmen approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The High Court did not consider
the plea relating to the existence of alternative remedy and denial of opportunity
F to justify the order of termination by leading evidence to be of any consequence
and held that the learned Single Judge had permitted the appellant-employer
to proceed further in accordance with law. Since the order of termination was
passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in hasty manner
the writ petition was maintainable.

G In support of the appeal, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel submitted
that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. No reason was
indicated by the writ petitioners for by-passing the statutory remedies. Even
in the writ petition, nothing was said to· justify by-passing the statutory
remedy. In fact it was clearly stated that the standing orders governing the
service conditions were in operation. The High Court should not have
H considered the passage of time as a factor to justify the action of the writ
U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. v. R.S. PANDEY[PASAYAT,J.) 609

petitioners in straightway filing the writ petition. As noted above, the long A
pendency was on account of the various amendments sought for by the writ
petitioners. They should not have been permitted to take advantage of their
own dilutory methods. It was however accepted that the appeal is not pressed
so far as respondent No.2 is concerned as he had died during the pendency
of the appeal and the appellant has settled the matter with the legal heirs of B
said deceased respondent No.2.

Jn response, learned counsel for respondent No. I-workman submitted
that existence of statutory remedy is not a rule of law but a law of caution
and in appropriate cases the High Court can entertain writ petitions. This was
a case where there was gross violation of principles of natural justice and, C
therefore, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and
deciding the matter on merits. Merely because the employer had a right to
justify the order of dismissal by adducing evidence, that cannot be a ground
to deny the affected party the right to approach the High Court by filing a
writ petition. In fact the employer has been permitted to take such action as
is available in law by the orders of learned Single Judge and the Division D
Bench.

The issues relating to entertaining writ petitions when alternative remedy
is available, were examined by this Court in several cases and recently in State
of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Mis Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr.,
[2005J 6 sec 499. E
Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the· (::onstitution
(42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has
been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule
of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the F
existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of
the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the
same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an
alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally
the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative
remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without a\ ailing the alternative G
remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong
case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income
Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh
v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors .. AIR (l 955) SC 425; Union of India v. H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh,
AIR (1958) SC 86 and Mis K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of
Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089, held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers
on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs.
However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the
B High, Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is
satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief
elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power
if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of
natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.

C Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
and Anr. v. Bhaila/ Bhai etc. etc., AIR (1964) SC I006 held that the remedy
provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the
modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence
legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226
of the Constitution is a discretionary power. Similar view has been re-iterated
D in N. r.' Ve/uswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Ors., AIR (1959) SC 422;
Municipal Council, Khurai and Anr. v. Kamal Kumar and Anr., AIR (1965)
SC 1321; Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Ama/endu Das and Ors., AIR
(1984) SC 653; S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Ors., AIR (1988) SC 616;
R.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors., AIR (1995) SC 1715; Kera/a
E State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Kurien E. Ka/athil and Ors., AIR (2000)
SC 2573;A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chel/appan and Ors., (2000] 7 SCC
695; and L.L. Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors.,
[2001] 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., [2001] 8 SCC 509; PratapSingh and Anr. v. State ofHaryana, [2002] 7
F SCC 484 and G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.,
[2003 J 1 sec 12.

In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (2003] 2 SCC
107, this Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability
of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and
G the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere
if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of
the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice
or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires ,
of an Act is challenged.
H
U.P.STATESPINNINGCO.LTD. v. R.S.PANDEY [PASAYAT,J.) 611

In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR (1952) SC 192; A
Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd, AIR (1985) SC
330; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, AIR (1999) SC 294;
Shivgonda Anna Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR (1999)
SC 2281; C.A. Abraham v. l.T.O. Kottayam and Ors., AIR (1961) SC 609;
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State ofOrissa andAnr., AIR (1983) SC 603; B
H.B. Gandhi v. Mis Gopinath and Sons, [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 312; Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 22; Tin
Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 74; Sheela
Devi v. Jaspal Singh, [1999] l SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C.
Krishnan and Ors., [200 I] 6 SCC 569, this Court held that where hierarchy of
appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies C
before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
AIR (1985) SC 1147 the appeal is from "Caeser to Caeser's wife" the existence
of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the
instant case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they D
thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the
High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that
alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition. Since the
High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory
remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court E
to consider the question again. When the High Court had entertained a writ
petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while
dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be
raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is
found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Similar view was expressed by
this Court in First Income-Tax Officer, Salem v. Mis. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., F
[1966] 3 SCR 84 and State ofU.P. and Ors. v. Mis. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,
[I 977] 2 SCC 724. That being the position, we do not consider the High
Court's judgment to be vulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was
not availed. There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of
exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken G
before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to
a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings
on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait
until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no
application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the
principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can
entertain a writ petition.

Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of
fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are
shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the
B grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the
High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there
is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction
of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of
palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies
C provided by the statute. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday Narain v.
Income Tax Officer, Bareil/y AIR (1971) SC 33 that if the High Court had
entertained a petition despite availability of alternative remedy and heard the
parties on merits it would be ordinarily unjustifiable for the High Court to
dismiss the same on the ground of non exhaustion of statutory remedies;
unless the High Court finds that factual disputes are involved and it would
D not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of the few
expressions in Reg v. Hilling/on, London Borough Council, (1974) I QB 720
which seems to bring out well the position. Lord Widgery, C.J. stated in this
case:
E
"It has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there
is no other equally effective and convenient remedy ... "

The statutory system of appeals is more effective and more convenient
than application for certiorari and the principal reason why it may
F prove itself more convenient and more effective is that an appeal to
(say) the Secretary of State can be disposed of at one hearing whether
the issue between them is a matter of law or fact or policy or opinion
or a combination of some or all of these ........ whereas of course an
appeal for certiorari is limited to cases where the issue is a matter of
law and then only it is a matter of law appearing on the face of the
G
order."

"An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is
speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case
therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used ..... ! would, however,
H deftn; a proper case as being one where the decision in question is
U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. v. R.S.PANDEY [PASAYAT,J.) 613
liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly A
made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law."

After all the above discussion, the following observations of
Roskill L.J. in Hanson v. Church Commissioner, (1978) QB 823 may not
be welcomed but it should not be forgotten also:
B
"There are a number of shoals and very little safe water in the
unchartered seas which divide the line between prerogative orders
and statutory appeals, and I do not propose to plunge into those
seas ...."
~

In a catena of decisions it has been held that writ petition under Article C
226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy
is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.

In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu
Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, [2004] 4 SCC 268, it was held that when the
dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and D
specific remedy is, therefore, 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 Shantarum Wadke, [1976] l SCC 496, Rajasthan SRTC v. E
Krishna Kant, [1995] 5 SCC 75, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Muncipal
Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr., [2002] 2 SCC 542 and in Scooters India
and Ors. v. Vijai V. Eldred, [1998] 6 SCC 549.

In Premier Automobiles Ltd., case (Supra) it was observed as follows: F
"A speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes
arising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to
ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil
courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the
elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The G
procedure followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate
a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the
courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not
shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any
appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and
their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just
and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many
cases. They can make and re-make the contracts, settlement, wage
structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary
B remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore,
always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them
are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil
court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments
concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should
c necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments
and the disputes arising under them".

In Basant Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors ..
[ 1964] 6 SCR 913 the Constitution Bench of this Court observed as follows:

D "It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Art.
226 are very wide, but it is not suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even
these powers can take in within their sweep industrial disputes of the
kind which this contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would confirm the
finding of the High Court that the proper remedy which is available
E to the appellants to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said
notices and circulars is to take recourse to s. 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, or seek relief, if possible, under sections 74 and 75 of
the Act."

The above position was recently highlighted in Hindustan Steel Works
F Construction Ltd. and Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.
Employees Union, (2005) 6 SCALE 430.

Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court was not
justified in entertaining the writ petition. Usually when writ petition is
G entertained notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy and issues are
decided on merits, this Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case have
special .features, which warrant interference.

The residual question is what would the appropriate direction in such
H a case. Stand of the employer is that it could have justified the order of
U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. v. R.S.PANDEY [PASA YAT,J.] 615

tennination by adducing any evidence even if it was held that there was some A
defect in the departmental proceedings. The solution is found in what was
stated by this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993] 4
SCC 737. In paragraph 31, it was observed as follows:

"In all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to
the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts B
and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to
the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming
to the Court!Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show
how his or her case was prejudiced because of non-supply of the
report. If the non-supply of the report would have made no difference C
to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal
should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court!Tribunal
should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the
ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done
at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it D
is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the
question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside
the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional
authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural
justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the
Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have E
made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the
order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the
Court!Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief
that should be granted is to direct re-instatement of the employee with
liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by F
placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry
from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether
the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits
from the date of his dismissal to the date of his re-instatement if
ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the
authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the G
proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee
succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be re-instated, the
authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will
treat the period from the date of dismissal till the re-instatement and
to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A entitled. The re-instatement made as a result of the setting aside the
inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a re-
instatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the
stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry
is held. That will also be the correct position in law."

B In view of above, we set aside the order of learned Single Judge as
affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and direct that
within a period of four months the enquiry shall be completed by starting from
the stage of service of show cause notice and consideration of the reply, if
any, filed in accordanc7 with the standing orders holding the field. The
C respondent No. 1 shall be re-instated to service but without any back wages
and other service benefits and his re-instatement shall be solely for the
purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. His entitlements, if any,
would be adjudicated by the authorities depending upon the result of the
disciplinary proceedings.

D The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

\!.S.S. Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Article 226"Sign in to search