1986 (8) TMI 57 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the dismissal in limine of a special leave petition filed before this court by a party challenging the award of Labour Court would preclude the said party from subsequently approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the said award? Held that - The grant of leave under article 226 of the Constitution is undoubtedly in the discretion of the High Court but the exercise of that discretionary jurisdiction is to be guided by established legal principles. It will not be a sound exercise of that discretion to refuse to consider writ petition on its merits solely on the ground that a special leave petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court had been dismissed by non-speaking order. Allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to the High Court for disposal on the merits. Having regard to the fact that the case concerns the service benefits claimed by the third respondent, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court precludes a party from approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an award of the Labour Court.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where a party, respondent No. 3, challenged an award of the Labour Court and was subsequently dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court through a non-speaking order. The party then approached the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the same award. The High Court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the merits, citing the doctrine of election and discretion of the court. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not bar the party from seeking relief under article 226. The Supreme Court clarified that a non-speaking order of dismissal does not imply a rejection of the merits of the case. It highlighted the importance of considering each remedy separately and not applying the doctrine of election in this context. The court also noted that its order requesting the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within a specified time was not considered by the High Court, indicating the intention for the case to be heard on its merits.

The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments to support its position, emphasizing that the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court should not be influenced solely by the dismissal of a special leave petition. The court distinguished the present case from previous decisions where the doctrine of election was applicable due to the nature of the remedies sought and the interplay between different legal provisions. Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and not presuming implications from a non-speaking order of dismissal. The court reiterated that the dismissal of a special leave petition should not hinder a party from seeking relief through alternative legal avenues.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the writ petition for consideration on its merits. The court emphasized the need for prompt resolution, particularly concerning service benefits claimed by the respondent. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, bringing closure to the legal proceedings in this matter.