9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1406 - SC - Indian LawsAppropriate Forum - Termination of services - High Court of Allahabad passed a conditional interim order staying the execution of award and on condition to deposit the entire back wages before the Labour Court, and appellant complied with the same - during the pendency of the writ petition, the State of Uttarakhand came to be created and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Dehradun came within the jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand - HELD THAT - It cannot be disputed that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand the jurisdiction over judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand and not with the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun was as such required to be transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to the High Court of Uttarakhand in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Act. For whatever reason the said writ petition was not transferred. That does not mean that despite the above, jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would continue. Therefore subsequently when the writ petition came up before the High Court of Allahabad and having realized and observed that the jurisdiction against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand, the High Court of Allahabad rightly permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ petition pending before it with the liberty to the appellants to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court. In the present case, the appropriate court would be the High Court of Uttarakhand only. Therefore as such no error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid cannot be said to be adoring himself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. Once a judicial order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) and thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court against the judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2014 (M/S) is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is directed to be restored on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad post-creation of the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Transfer of proceedings under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 3. Validity of the High Court of Allahabad's order permitting withdrawal and refiling of the writ petition. 4. Principles of laches in filing the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. 5. Judicial propriety and respect for coordinate bench orders. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad post-creation of the State of Uttarakhand: The Supreme Court noted that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the jurisdiction over the Labour Court, Dehradun, would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court of Allahabad should have transferred the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The failure to transfer the writ petition did not mean that the High Court of Allahabad retained jurisdiction. 2. Transfer of proceedings under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: Section 35 of the Act mandates that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad must transfer proceedings to the High Court of Uttarakhand if they pertain to the transferred territory. The Supreme Court highlighted that the writ petition should have been transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad, but this administrative action was not taken. The Supreme Court clarified that this administrative lapse did not preclude the High Court of Allahabad from permitting the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file it before the appropriate court. 3. Validity of the High Court of Allahabad's order permitting withdrawal and refiling of the writ petition: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Allahabad's decision to allow the appellants to withdraw the writ petition and refile it in the High Court of Uttarakhand. This judicial order was deemed appropriate given the jurisdictional shift. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court of Allahabad did not overstep its bounds or assume the powers of the Chief Justice in making this order. 4. Principles of laches in filing the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand: The High Court of Uttarakhand had dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches, observing that the challenge to the Labour Court's award was delayed by 19 years. The Supreme Court found this reasoning unsustainable, noting that the writ petition was initially filed promptly in the High Court of Allahabad and remained pending there for 14 years. After withdrawal, the writ petition was immediately filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand. Thus, there was no delay attributable to the appellants. 5. Judicial propriety and respect for coordinate bench orders: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court of Uttarakhand for making unwarranted comments on the judicial order of the High Court of Allahabad. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicial discipline and propriety, asserting that the High Court of Uttarakhand should have respected the order of the coordinate bench of the High Court of Allahabad, especially since it was not under challenge. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand, restoring the writ petition on its file. The Supreme Court requested the High Court of Uttarakhand to finally decide and dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six months. The Registry was directed to communicate this order to the High Court of Uttarakhand forthwith. No costs were imposed.
|
