Santosh Solanki Vs. M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - in a situation like the one, the petitioner can always invoke the provisions of section 10.....ordera.m. sapre, j.1. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, i am unable to entertain the writ on its merits and hence its merits dismissal.2. it is a petition where the petitioner seeks to challenge his termination/dismissal order inter alia on the ground that it is passed without holding any enquiry and without following a principle of natural justice. the case of respondent which happens to be a government company is two fold. according to them firstly the remedy of petitioner is to seek reference under section 10 of the industrial dispute act for getting the issue of dismissal decided by the labour court and hence this court should not entertain the writ. in the second place, it is contended that if the reference is made to labour.....

Judgment:
ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am unable to entertain the writ on its merits and hence its merits dismissal.

2. It is a petition where the petitioner seeks to challenge his termination/dismissal order inter alia on the ground that it is passed without holding any enquiry and without following a principle of natural justice. The case of respondent which happens to be a Government Company is two fold. According to them firstly the remedy of petitioner is to seek reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act for getting the issue of dismissal decided by the Labour Court and hence this Court should not entertain the writ. In the second place, it is contended that if the reference is made to Labour Court, the respondent will be able to defend the dismissal by pleading those facts which led to passing of the dismissal order.

3. In my view learned Counsel for the respondent seems to be right in his submission. The question whether references under Section 10 of I.D. Act can be regarded as an alternative and efficacious remedy or riot for entertaining the writ, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238. Following the law so laid down in this case, the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case reported in 1983 LIC 1763 (FB) (P & H), ruled inter alia that when the workman has an alternative remedy of reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act available, then in such an event the writ should not be entertained. I respectfully follow this dictum laid down by (P & H) in aforesaid case and decline to entertain the writ.

4. I am also inclined to accept the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent when he urged that what the respondent can not prove in writ can be proved in reference by the respondent by leading evidence. In other words, the submission was that in a reference before the Labour Court, the respondent being an employer can rather has a right to lead evidence and prove misconduct on facts which led to petitioner's (employee's) dismissal from service. This, the employer can do even though the dismissal is based on no enquiry, law gives an employer an opportunity in reference cases to lead evidence and prove the misconduct provided the case to that effect is pleaded in the written statement and an opportunity is sought from the Labour Court. This right, the respondent can not exercise in writ jurisdiction while defending the dismissal order because of jurisdictional constraints in exercise of Article 226/227 provided under the Constitution.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 1046, and contended that if the termination is based on no enquiry, the same has to be set aside even in writ jurisdiction. The submission though true may not have application to the facts of this case. When a workman of any industry is dismissed, his rights qua his employer are governed by the Labour Laws his case is governed by Statutory Rules. In the later category of case the Writ Court can come to his rescue and examine the plea impugned. Such does not seem to be a case of that nature.

6. Coming to the facts of this case, it can not be disputed that petitioner can be classified as workman whereas respondent can be classified as an industry. In a situation like the one, the petitioner can always invoke the provisions of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act by approaching to State Government and seek reference to a Labour Court for adjudication of legality of his termination order. There is no reason why the State will decline to make a reference to Labour Court.

7. It is with these observations, I decline to interfere and entertain the writ and dismiss the same.