Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Shram Nayayalaya and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - according to the learned counsel, in view of the existence and availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and failure of the respondent no. jhingan and shri vinay malaviya, learned counsels appearing for the respondents, submit that the submission of the petitioner that existence and availability of an alternative remedy of appeal and failure of the respondent no. this being so, the provisions of section 4-k of the act were attracted, and the state government were well within jurisdiction to refer the dispute relating to the termination of the respondent no. 11. the court is clearly of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel regarding ouster of the jurisdiction of the labour court on account of the existence of the forum of appeal is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. likewise, submission that failure of the workmen -respondents to avail the alternative remedy of appeal debarred the labour court from entertaining the reference is unfounded and merits rejection, 12. in the result, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs which is quantified at rs.d.s. sinha, j. 1. heard shri swaraj prakash, learned counsel appearing for the employer-petitioner, shri u.s.m. tripathi, shri r.k. jain, shri p.c. jhingan, learned counsels appearing for the workmen-respondents no. 3, and shri vinay malaviya, learned standing counsel represent) ng the respondents no. 1 and 2.2. all the three writ petitions involve identical controversy and are connected. hence, disposed of by this common judgment.3. awards of the presiding officer, labour court, gorakhpur division, gorakhpur, a copy whereof is annexure-5 to the petitions, are under challenge in these petitions under article 226 of the constitution of india.4. the services of the respondents no. 3, the seasonal employees of the petitioner, were terminated. this led to an industrial dispute. accordingly, the state of uttar pradesh, the respondent no. 2, exercising its power under section 4-k of the u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947, hereinafter called the act, referred the dispute to the labour court, the respondent no. 1, wherein the impugned awards were rendered.5. by the impugned awards it has been found that the termination of the services of the respondent no. 3 was neither justified nor was it in accordance with law.6. the sole submission on behalf of the petitioner before this court is that the impugned award is a nullity, in as much as the labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the reference. elaborating his submission the learned counsel submits that against the impugned termination, the respondent no. 3 had a statutory remedy of appeal which, admittedly, they did not avail. according to the learned counsel, in view of the existence and availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and failure of the respondent no. 3 in not availing of the same, the jurisdiction of the labour court stood ousted; and the labour court was debarred from entertaining the references and rendering the impugned awards.7. to counter the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner, shri u.s.m. tripathi, shri r.k. jain, shri p.c. jhingan and shri vinay malaviya, learned counsels appearing for the respondents, submit that the submission of the petitioner that existence and availability of an alternative remedy of appeal and failure of the respondent no. 3 to avail the same barred the jurisdiction of the respondent no. l to entertain the reference and deliver the award is wholly unfounded being not supported by any known principle of law.8. it is not disputed before this court that the petitioner is employer nor is it disputed that the respondent no. 3 are workmen as defined in the act. likewise, it is also not disputed that the dispute emanating from the termination of the services of the respondents no. 3 is an industrial dispute as defined by the act. this being so, the provisions of section 4-k of the act were attracted, and the state government were well within jurisdiction to refer the dispute relating to the termination of the respondent no. 3 to the labour court.9. there is no provision in the act providing for the ouster of the jurisdiction of the labour court to decide the dispute arising out of termination of the service of the workman, if any alternative forum for remedy is available to the workman.10. ouster of jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal cannot be inferred from the existence and availability of alternative forum for remedy.11. the court is clearly of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel regarding ouster of the jurisdiction of the labour court on account of the existence of the forum of appeal is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. likewise, submission that failure of the workmen -respondents to avail the alternative remedy of appeal debarred the labour court from entertaining the reference is unfounded and merits rejection,12. in the result, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs which is quantified at rs. 5000/- only in each case. petitioner is directed to pay the costs to the workmen respondents within a period of two months, to be computed from today.