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

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 26-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. STA TE SPINNING CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
R.S. PANDEY AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 
(ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, I 9 50 : 
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 of show 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 of MP. 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 of Andhra 
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 
a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.