9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case and brief narration thereof would suffice. Respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1963 as a sales officer in the service of the appellant, the Indian Oil Corporation. He was dismissed from service in 1969 on charges of misconduct but was subsequently reinstated under orders of the Labour Court, Patna, before which an industrial dispute had been raised. During the period when respondent No. 3 was out of employment consequent on his dismissal, some, of his juniors had been promoted to higher posts. Subsequent to his reinstatement, respondent No. 3 claimed that he was entitled to be given promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted and also to be given the higher pay scale of Rs. 1,025-1,625 from such date. This claim was not accepted by the appellant and that again gave rise to another industrial dispute. The State Government of Bihar referred the said dispute to the Labour Court, Patna, on September 26, 1980. The Labour Court, by its award dated March 11, 1983, held that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be paid salary in the scale of Rs. 1,025-1,625 with effect from December 30, 1970, that being the date on which his juniors were promot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid contention as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. That contention was upheld by the Division Bench which took the view that the dismissal in limine by this court of the special leave petition filed by the appellant against the award by the non-speaking order reproduced above precluded the appellant from challenging the said award before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In the opinion of the High Court, the doctrine of election was applicable to the case and the appellant having chosen the remedy of approaching a superior court and failed in that attempt, he could not thereafter resort to the alternative remedy of approaching the High Court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason stated by the High Court is that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution being essentially discretionary in nature, it will be sound exercise of the court's discretion to refuse relief in such a situation. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant without going into the merits of the case. The appellant challenges the correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is manifest injustice resulting from the impugned order or judgment. The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by non-speaking order does not, therefore, justify any inference that by necessary implication the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by this court. It may also be observed that having regard to the very heavy backlog of work, in this court and the necessity to restrict the intake of fresh cases by strictly following the criteria aforementioned, it has very often been the practice of this court not to grant special leave except where the party cannot claim effective relief by approaching the concerned High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases also, the special leave petitions are quite often dismissed only by passing a non-speaking order especially in view of the rulings already given by this court, in the two decisions aforecited, that such dismissal of the special leave petition will not preclude the party from moving the High Court for seeking relief under article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases, it would work extreme hardship and injustice if the High Court were to close i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 9147 of 1983 by the non-speaking order of this court dated September 9, 1983, did not operate as a bar against the appellant in the matter of challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court by resort to proceedings before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. The doctrine of election referred to by the High Court has no application at all to the present situation and the decision in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat [1970] 1 SCR 322, is clearly distinguishable. The question that arose in that case was whether a party who had a choice of resorting to one of two remedies before the same court, namely, the High Court, could successively move the High Court under section II 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and again under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The question was answered in the negative for the simple reason that the order passed by the High Court under the first proceeding would conclude the matter inter parties. In such a situation, the party had to exercise his choice and elect which remedy he would resort to in the High Court. The grant of leave under article 226 of the Constitution is undoubtedly in the discretion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
