LexHARYANA STATE COOP. LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK versus NEELAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARYANA STATE COOP. LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK v. NEELAM FEBRUARY 28, 2005 B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Labour Laws : Belated claim of workman-Discretionary jurisdiction of Labour Court C to grant relief-Workman on ad-hoc service terminated-,-Labour Courfdeclined to grant any relief to the workman as she approached it after more than seven years-High Court however allowed writ petition filed by tvorkman and directed re-instatement_:_Held: High Court erred in interfering with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by Labour Court since it was not shown to be injudicious, D arbitrary or capricious-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226. E Terminated workman withdrew her writ petition before High Court without seeking leave to take recourse to alternative remedy-Subsequent reference before Labour Court-Maintainability of-Held, maintainable, being not barred by principles of res judicata-Labour Laws-Reference. Respondent was appointed as a Typist in Appellant-Bank on an ad hoc basis from 6-1-1985. She was given extensions from time to time, which eventually came to an end on 30-5-1986 and her services were. not continued thereafter. Later, the respondent joined the services of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on or about 10-8-1988. F Consequent to some similarly situated employees raising an industrial dispute and getting relief of reinstatement in industrial adjudication, Respondent filed writ petition before High Court in 1989 but withdrew the same in 1993. Subsequently, Respondent prayed for reference of the industrial dispute by the State. Labour Court answered the refere~ce G against the Respondent on the premise that (i) her claim was belated; and (ii) she having withdrawn her writ petition without obtaining any lea~e from the High Court, the reference was barred by res judicata. Writ petition before High Court was allowed and Respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. However, she was held H 424 ( ' .. ....._ llARY1\NA STATE COOP. LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK 1·.NEELAM 425 not entitled to any back wages. The High Court further held that the A industrial dispute raised by the Respondent was not barred by res judicata. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : I. I. The \Vrit petition filed by the Respondent concededly B was not adjudicated on merit. Apparently, she did not avail the alternative remedy 1which was more efficacious. Before the Labour Court even disputed questions of fact could be gone into and adjudicated upon, which would ordinarily not be permissible in a writ proceeding. If the Respondent had made a prayer for withdrawal of a writ petition on the said ground, C she cannot be ,denied the remedy available to her in another jurisdiction in terms of the (1rovisions ofthe statute. The principles embodied in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure laying down a public policy is not applicable to a case of this nature. (430-D-EI 1.2. A writ petition filed by the Respondent could have been D dismissed even on the ground that another alternative remedy which was more efficacious was available and furthermore on the ground that the writ court would not go into the disputed question of fact. Even in such an event, it was open to the Respondent to approach the Labour Court or to take recourse to other remedies which were otherwise available to her. The Labour Court wrongly applied the principles of res judicata. (430-F; 431-BI Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Ors., (19871 1 SCC 5 and Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 419, referred to. 2. The Industrial Courts like any other court must be held to have some discretion in the matter of grant of relief. 'There is no proposition of law that once an order of termination is held to be bad in law, irrespective of any other consideration the Labour Court would be bound to grant relief E F to the workman. The Industrial Disputes Act does not contain any provision G which mandates the Industrial Court to grant relief in every case to the workman. The extent to which a relief can be moulded will inevitably depend upon the facts and circumstances obtaining i~ each case. In absence of any express provision contained in the statute in this behalf, it is not for the cc;iurt to lay down a law whkh will have a universal application. 1431-C, DI H 426 SUPREME
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.