Het Ram Vs. Dy. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.

Het Ram vs Dy. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 21, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/486240

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/486240
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Aug 21, 2002
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 16145 of 1991
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - maintainability of writ - Sections 2 (3) and 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - petition involving matter of disputed termination of employee - question of law not raised by petitioner - writ not sustainable when question of facts are raised - writ to be dis...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(3) and 4K; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Het Ram

Advocate H.M. Srivastava, Adv.

Respondent

Dy. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.

Advocate D.K.S. Rathore, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(3) and 4K; Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director
Reported In: 2002(4)AWC3293; (2002)3UPLBEC2781

Excerpt

service - maintainability of writ - sections 2 (3) and 4k of u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947 and article 226 of constitution of india - petition involving matter of disputed termination of employee - question of law not raised by petitioner - writ not sustainable when question of facts are raised - writ to be dismissed when other method like approaching labour court available - regional conciliation officer and labour court to be approached at first instance. - .....he was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.12.1989, for committing certain misconduct. after holding domestic enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. an order of dismissal dated 23.4.1990 was passed by the regional manager, u. p. s.r.t.c., agra and was confirmed by the deputy general manager, u.p.s.r.t.c., meerut zone, meerut, vide order dated 28.3.1991.3. this writ petition raises questions of facts which can be adjudicated only after appraisal of oral documentary evidence. this court cannot sit in appeal over the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authorities and questions of facts can be decided by a labour court or by means of other machineries such as arbitration or conciliation as provided under the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947. as held in chandrama singh v. managing director, u. p. co-operative union and ors., 1991 (2) awc 1005 : 1991 (63) flr 478, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternate remedy of approaching the labour court.4. the petitioner may move an application before the concerned regional conciliation officer/deputy labour commissioner, who shall try to bring the parties to a re-conciliation. if no settlement is arrived at in the conciliation proceedings, the matter in dispute would be referred by him to the labour court. on receiving such reference, the labour court will fix a date of filing of the written statement within 2 weeks and decide the reference according to procedure prescribed and time frame under rule 12 of the u. p. industrial disputes rules, 1957 and adjudicate preferably within four months from the date of receipt of reference and for this purpose the hearing may ordinarily be continued day-to-day as provided under rule 12 (4) of the said rules.5. with the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Full Judgment

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was working as Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and was posted at Mathura. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.12.1989, for committing certain misconduct. After holding domestic enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. An order of dismissal dated 23.4.1990 was passed by the Regional Manager, U. P. S.R.T.C., Agra and was confirmed by the Deputy General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut Zone, Meerut, vide order dated 28.3.1991.

3. This writ petition raises questions of facts which can be adjudicated only after appraisal of oral documentary evidence. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authorities and questions of facts can be decided by a labour court or by means of other machineries such as arbitration or conciliation as provided under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union and Ors., 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 (63) FLR 478, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternate remedy of approaching the labour court.

4. The petitioner may move an application before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, who shall try to bring the parties to a re-conciliation. If no settlement is arrived at in the conciliation proceedings, the matter in dispute would be referred by him to the labour court. On receiving such reference, the labour court will fix a date of filing of the written statement within 2 weeks and decide the reference according to procedure prescribed and time frame under Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and adjudicate preferably within four months from the date of receipt of reference and for this purpose the hearing may ordinarily be continued day-to-day as provided under Rule 12 (4) of the said Rules.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Het Ram vs Dy. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Rakesh Tiwari, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(3) a...

Service