UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 13-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED & ORS.
v.
BALBIR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 5667 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ]
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: s. 35(2) – Transfer
of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttarakhand High
Court – Creation of the State of Uttarakhand – Writ petition filed
by the appellants pending before the High Court of Allahabad
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Dehradun was required to be transferred to the High
Court of Uttarakhand by the Chief Justice of the High Court of
Allahabad in exercise of power under Sub-Section (2) of Section
35 – However, the writ petition was not transferred – When the said
writ petition came up for hearing before the Allahabad High Court,
the High Court permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ
petition with liberty to file the same before the appropriate court-
High Court of Uttarakhand and hence, the appellants filed the writ
petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand – However, after 5
years of filing of writ petition, the Single Judge of the High Court
of Uttarakhand dismissed the said writ petition by observing that
the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court by permitting
the appellants to withdraw writ petition pending before it with liberty
to file the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, barged
into to override the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 35 by adoring himself with the powers of the Chief Justice
of Allahabad High Court as contemplated under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 35; and that too when award was challenged before the
Uttarakhand High Court after 19 years of its pendency –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Judicial order passed
by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to
withdraw the writ petition cannot be said to be contrary to the
provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 –
Furthermore, there was no delay at all on the part of the appellants
in challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun –
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 92
92
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
Thus, the order passed by the High Court being unsustainable, is
quashed and set aside.
Judicial discipline/propriety: Mandate of – Held: Judicial
discipline/propriety demands to respect the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed
by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the creation of the State of Uttarakhand,
the jurisdiction over the Labour Court, Dehradun would only vest
with the High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the writ petition
pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Dehradun was required to be transferred to the High Court
of Uttarakhand by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad
in exercise of power under Sub-Section(2) of Section 35 of the
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. As the writ petition
before the High Court of Allahabad was against the judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun, Sub-Section
(3) of Section 35 shall not be applicable. Therefore, as such, the
writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad was required to
be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand. However for
whatever reason the writ petition filed by the appellants before
the High Court of Allahabad was not transferred. Therefore, when
the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad came
up for hearing before the Allahabad High Court, the High Court
permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ petition with
liberty to file the same before the appropriate court i.e. in the
instant case the High Court of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the
appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court of
Uttarakhand. However, after 5 years of filing of writ petition, the
Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the
said writ petition by observing that the Coordinate Bench of the
Allahabad High Court was not justified in permitting the appellants
to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition
before the appropriate court. The Single Judge of the High Court
of Uttarakhand observed that by permitting the appellants to
withdraw writ petition pending before it with liberty to file the
writ petition before the appropriate court-High C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.