LexU.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus U.P. RAJYA SETU NIGAM S. KARAMCHARI SANGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
........ U.P. ST ATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. A v. U.P. RAJY A SETU NIGAM S. KARAMCHARI SANGH FEBRUARY 13, 2004 [RUMA PAL AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226--Exhaustion of alternative remedy-Industrial dispute-Unauthorised absence-Termination order-Writ Petition challenging the same-First writ petition dismissed on the ground of c availability of alternative remedy and the other one disposed of-Correctness of-Held: High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition since the dispute was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Industrial Dispute~ Act, 1947. and U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Rights and obligations sought to be enforced are created under the Industrial Disputes Act-Also disposal on the ground of delay when disputed questions of fact were involved and also when D previous writ petition on the same issue dismissed on the ground of adequate alternative remedy not correct-Res judicata-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 22-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 65-U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946- E Clause L-2. I 2-Unauthorised absence-Issuance of notices but of no avail- Termination of services in terms of the Standing Order-Writ Petition challenging the termination order-Termination order quashed by High Court- Correctness of-Held: Unauthorised absence of employees not due to strike- Notice in compliance with the Standing Orders-Employees did not reply to F the notices as such the Management drew presumption against employees that they had abandoned the services in terms of the Standing Order-Employee did not rebut presumption by adducing evidence which being question of fact is to be determined by the appropriate forum-Hence, order of High Court set aside. G Strike-Whether amounts to abandonment of service-Held: Person on ·. illegal strike abandons his job-However, cessation of work or refusal to continue in case of legal strike is absence authorized in law. Appellant-Government company employed muster roll employees at 391 H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. ........ A their bridge construction unit in various capacities. The employees were governed by the terms and conditions of the Standing Orders certified under the U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Clause L 2.12 provided that if any workman remained unathorisedly absent from work for more than 10 consecutive,: days he would be deemed B to have abandoned the services of the Corporation without any notice. The workmen remained absent from duty. The appellants issued repeated notices including notice in the newspaper asking them to return to work. However, they remained absent. The appellant then issued termination orders. AP workman challenged the termination order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that a workman could raise an C. industrial dispute if he so desired. The respondent-Union represents the cause of muster roll employees. The respondent filed second writ petition challenging the termination order. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by appellan~ upholding the order of the D Single Judge. Hence the present appeals. Appellant-Government company contended that the matter should have been decided by the fora provided under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition since there were disputed questions of fact; that the High Court acted contrary to its E previous decision in AP 's case; that Clause L-2.12 of the Standing Orders had been properly invoked because the workmen had in fact unauthorisedly absented themselves without any reason; and that it could not be said that the workmen were on strike since they had not given any notice of strike mandatorily required under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. F Respondent-Union contended that the respondent should not be - relegated to its remedies under UPIDA as the matter had been pending before the High Court for several years; that the Certified Standing Orders had statutory force and as such Article 226 was properly invoked; that the notice published in the newspaper was invalid for non-compliance with G Clause L-2.12 of the Standing Orders; that illegal strike cannot amount t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.