Som Dutt and Others Vs. State Bank of India and Others - Court Judgment

CWP No.11143 of 1995 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11143 of 1995 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 23, 2012 Som Dutt and others ....Petitioners Versus State Bank of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate, for the respondents.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

In this writ petition filed by the petitioneRs.challenge is to the action of the respondent-Bank in terminating their services on 27th July, 1995 whereas they had completed more than 5 years of continuous service in spite of retaining those persons who had joined after the petitioneRs.According to the petitioners this was in violation of Section 25G of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').A further prayer has also been made for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to retain the petitioners as Waiters in the canteen service of the respondent-Bank.”

2. In the written statement, preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners have equal efficacious remedy under the Act and they had not exhausted the same before approaching this Court by way of present writ petition.

The preliminary objection No.1 reads thus: “1.

That the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners have not exhausted the CWP No.11143 of 1995 (O & M) ::2:: remedies available to them before approaching this Hon'ble High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

As the case of the petitioners is that action of the answering respondent is violative of provisions of Section -25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioners should have sought the equal efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal.

Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this preliminary objection alone.”

3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petition may be disposed of by relegating the petitioners to seek their remedy under the Act.

He further prays that a time-bound direction may be issued to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforementioned proposition made by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.5.

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioners to avail alternate remedy available to them under the Act in accordance with law.

However, it is observed that in case the petitioners file any petition, the same be disposed of expeditiously.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 23, 2012 Sukhpreet