Shyamapado Rajwar v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 2(s)
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
--- : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --- 06/13.06.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
Learned counsel for the respondents are also present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(a) For quashing the order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure – 17) whereby and whereunder the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Director (Personnel) BCCL has been rejected. (b) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner to his original service in view of the fact that the petitioner has suffered much punishment by staying away from service since 29.07.2008 on account of his mental illness.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a counter- affidavit has been filed in the present case raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. It has been submitted that the petitioner being a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has moved against order of dismissal dated
06.10.2009 against which appeal has also been dismissed vide dated 2
13.05.2019 and he has a remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The counter-affidavit has been filed in the instant case vide affidavit dated 10.09.2020 to which no rejoinder has been filed.
Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit and involvement of disputed questions of facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner against the impugned orders. However, it is observed that the petitioner may avail alternative remedy against the impugned orders as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 within a period of two months from today.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.