LexSTATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus U.P. RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM S.S. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 7 S. C.R. 536 STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. U.P. RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM S.S. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3202 of 2008) MAY 2, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Decision of retrenchment of employees of Government concern - On c account of loss occurring to the concern - Writ petition questioning the decision of retrenchment - Praying for absorption in other Government concerns in case of retrenchment -Several interim orders passed in the petition - Difference of opinion between the judges of Division Bench of 0 High Court - Reference to third judge - Final decision in favour of the workmen - Direction for their absorption on the basis of assurance given by the State and for payment of compensation - On appeal held: the writ petition was not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy - It cannot be laid down as legal proposition that once a petition E is admitted, it can never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - Propriety of the action of the employer being a disputed question of fact could have been decided by a Labour Court alone on the basis of evidence adduced - The absorption was regulated by statutory rules - Hence F direction for absorption on assurance of State without considering the rules was not correct - There can be no estoppel against a statute - A court can direct a State by mandamus to act in consonance with law and not in violation thereof - The workers a/so failed to show having any right of G absorption - Order of High Court to pay compensation is a/so wrong as entitlement to compensation on account of violation of any law has not been shown - Moreover, the order was not even capable of implementation - Writs - Mandamus - Compensation - Estoppel - Labour Laws. H 536 , STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. U.P. RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS 537 NIGAM S.S. & ORS. The Board of Directors of U.P. State Mineral A Development Corporation Ltd. (appellant) decided to retrench about 50% of its employees. Employees made representation to the appellant-Corporation as well as to the appellant-State making grievance that the action was illegal. They also prayed for their absorption in other B departments of the State or other Public Sector Undertakings. However, no final order of retrenchment was passed. Since neither the Corporation nor the State gave any assurance, respondent-Samiti filed a writ petition. In the petition, by several interim orders, High c Court had directed the Corporation and the State to pay salary to the workmen. Corporation contended that the petition was not maintainable as the same was premature because no action of retrenchment was taken and also alternative and efficacious remedy under U.P. Industrial 0 Disputes Act was available to the employees; that decision of retrenchment of excess employees was taken in view of shrinkage of activities of the Corporation and because the Corporation was in acute financial crisis. The matter was placed before Division Bench for disposal of the matter. One of the Judges held that since alternative E remedy was available to the workmen, writ petition was not maintainable. He held that the Corporation was 'totally sick' and dismissed the petition. Second judge held that the petition having been entertained and several interim orders having been passed, cannot be dismissed on the F ground of availability of alternative remedy and on merits held in favour of the workmen and issued writ of mandamus. In view of difference of opinion, matter was referred to third judge, who concurred with opinion in favour of the employees and observing that the State G Government had stated that employees would be absorbed, directed for their absorption. In the meanttme review petition against the order was dismissed by the third judge, further directing the State to absorb the employees in phased manner. Thereafter State/ H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. A Corporation moved application for placing the petition before Division Bench of High Court for final order in the writ petition. In the application, they also sought permission to place on record Rules regarding absorption and certain facts, which was denied by the Division Bench. B In appeal against that, Supreme Court directed the matter to be placed before Division Bench of High Court for final disposal. Accordingly when the matter was placed before Division Bench
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.