TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnatures of 35 employees in their letters in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 do not match with their letters in W.P.(C) 10605/2018; the petitioners have not filed any requisition for calling the general body meeting, notice of meeting, agenda notes of meeting. The petitioners have to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal to prove these disputed documents in accordance with law. The new averments and documents filed by the petitioners along with the written submissions dated 25th August, 2020 are beyond pleadings and therefore, the same are not taken on record - this Court is of the view that both the petitioners have failed to show the authority to file the writ petition on behalf of 297 retrenched employees either in the writ petition or the documents filed along with the writ petition as on the date of filing of these writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are dismissed on the ground that the retrenched employees have statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and no 'Exceptional circumstances' have been made out by the petitioners. The retrenched employees are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act - petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of 'last come first go' has not been followed; fresh engagement of workmen is in violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act; seniority list has not been displayed as required by Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules; the retrenchment is violative of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act as PTI employs more than 100 employees and has not taken the prior permission from the State Government before retrenchment; retrenchment is violative of Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act as three months notice/three months wages in lieu of notice has not been given; retrenchment is violative of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act as one month notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the retrenchment compensation has not been given; retrenchment is violative of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Clauses 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule as the service conditions of the employees relating to rationalization/technique were altered without notice; the retrenchment is violative of Section 16A of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 as the reason for retrenchment was the liability for payment of wages and mandating promotion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further averred that management has the right to decide the strength of its workforce required to carry out its work efficiently. The respondent paid ₹ 40.15 crores towards retrenchment compensation and one month notice wage to 297 retrenched employees and ₹ 8.63 crores was deposited towards TDS and the said amount was paid after borrowing funds at the interest of 10.5% per annum which has to be repaid by PTI. During the pendency of these writ petitions, 78 retrenched employees have accepted their retrenchment and have applied for withdrawal of statutory benefits including gratuity etc. 46 out of 78 retrenched employees have received amount far in excess of the salary which they would have earned in their remaining service. The respondent has placed on record the list of 78 employees who have accepted the retrenchment and have also withdrawn their gratuity amount. The respondent has also placed on record the list of 219 employees who have not yet accepted their gratuity and other dues. As per the list of 78 employees, they have received the retrenchment compensation including TDS between ₹ 10 lakhs to ₹ 28 lakhs (Total ₹ 13,59,36,397/-) and gratuity am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent has vehemently disputed all the averments made and the grounds urged by the petitioners. According to the respondent, PTI is a news agency which digitally collects and transmits the news to its subscribers and is not involved in printing of newspapers; PTI is not carrying out any manufacturing activity and is not a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act; all the establishments of PTI cannot be deemed to be one establishment under Section 2(d) read with the Schedule of the Working Journalists Act, 1955; Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable as PTI is not a 'factory' as per Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948; assuming without admitting that PTI is an industrial establishment, PTI has carried out the retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which does not require any prior permission of the Government; the respondent has duly displayed the seniority list on 21st September, 2018; the respondent strictly followed the last come first go principle; there is no shortfall in the retrenchment compensation paid by the respondent; Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018) 6 SCC 202; Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava; and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691. 10. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondent, urged at the time of hearing that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in view of the statutory remedy available to the retrenched employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that Industrial Disputes Act is a complete Code in itself which provides for the remedies to the employees against retrenchment and the petitioners have based their claims on the alleged violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. PTI Employees Union invoked the Industrial Disputes Act by letter dated 04th October, 2018 to the Conciliation Officer/Appropriate Authority against the retrenchment whereupon the Appropriate Authority issued a notice dated 05th October, 2018 to the parties to appear before the Conciliation Officer on 09th October, 2018. When the respondent raised the objection during the course of arguments on 04th October, 2018, PTI Employees Union withdrew the letter dated 08th October, 2018. The non-disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed on behalf of 297 retrenched employees without any authorization. There are no pleadings whatsoever in the writ petitions that the retrenched employees have authorized the petitioners to espouse their cause. No document whatsoever has been filed along with the writ petitions to show that the retrenched employees have authorized the petitioners to espouse their cause. The petitioners have not even filed the Rules/Bye-laws governing them along with the writ petitions. The petitioners have also not filed with the writ petitions any requisition to call a meeting, notice of meeting, agenda notes of the meeting, list of attendees of the meeting, resolution passed for espousing the cause of the retrenched employees, minutes of meeting, resolution authorizing the General Secretary of the Union/Federation to raise a dispute and before which forum. It is further submitted that two writ petitions seeking identical reliefs are not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Bombay Union of Journalists v. 'Hindu' Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 318 and Management of Messers Hotel Samrat v. Government of NCT. 13. With respect to the judgments cited by the petitioner, learned senior counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioners as the respondent has vehemently disputed the averments made in the petitions and the writ petitions are still at the initial stage. That apart, Chennai Port Trust being a public sector undertaking was amenable to writ jurisdiction while PTI is not. Further, in this case, Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India (supra) was not considered. (iii) In Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava (supra), the Supreme Court ruled on the maintainability of a writ petition against a private school getting grant-in-aid. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition to be maintainable against an educational institution. The Writ Petition was entertained primarily on the basis that there was an admitted non-compliance of a statutory requirement. There is no such admission in the present matter, and it has been submitted by the respondent that there is complete compliance of all provisions of law. In a subsequent judgment Trigun Chand Thakur v. State of Bihar, (2019) 7 SCC 513, the Supreme Court held that the Management Committee of the private schools are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition of the Petitioner was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsalves, learned senior counsel submitted that on 25th August, 2020, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 filed response to the submissions of the respondent in which it is stated that petitioner is a registered Union and all the 297 retrenched employees are its members. On 29th September, 2018, PTI Employees Union called an emergency general body meeting in which a unanimous resolution was passed to authorize Mr. M.S. Yadav to file a Court case to challenge the retrenchment. 141 retrenched employees have sent their support letters to the petitioner Union. Along with the written submissions dated 25th August, 2020, the petitioners have filed the copy of the registration as Annexure I; copy of the resolution dated 29th September, 2018 as Annexure II and copies of 141 letters of the retrenched employees as Annexure III. 17. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that on 25th August, 2020, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10605/2018 has filed written submissions in which it is stated that the Federation of PTI Employees Unions is a Federation of four regional Unions of PTI employees and all 297 retrenched employees are the members of the Federat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact without need of any oral evidence. Para 24 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 24. Before answering this question, we would like to observe that, normally, this being a question of fact, this Court would have been reluctant to examine this question which in the ordinary course should be first decided by a fact-finding tribunal. However, as stated above, in this case parties have filed detailed affidavits and documents which, in our opinion, are sufficient for us to decide this question without the need for any oral evidence. 20. In Chennai Port Trust v. Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Assn., (2018) 6 SCC 202, the writ petition was filed for treating the employees working in the canteen to be regular employees of Chennai Port Trust which was allowed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court rejected the objection to the maintainability on the grounds that the writ Court entertained the writ petition and granted relief on merits; the appellate Court also affirmed the order on merits and therefore, it was too late to entertain this objection and the facts/documents were undisputed requiring no tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496, the trade unions of Premier Automobiles Ltd. filed a civil suit before City Civil Court, Bombay to challenge the settlement between the management and the union. The management challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain an industrial dispute. The suit was decreed which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Single Bench and thereafter, before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court considered the question of law with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit relating to an industrial dispute. The Supreme Court held that the only remedy in respect of an industrial dispute for enforcement of a right or obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act is to get adjudication under the Act. Relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment is reproduced hereunder: 9. It would thus be seen that through the intervention of the appropriate government, of course not directly, a very extensive machinery has been provided for settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes. But since an individual aggrieved cannot approach the Tribunal or the Labour Court directly for the redress of his grie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied) 24. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karamchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268, the union filed a writ petition challenging the termination of a workman in which the respondent raised preliminary objection of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the case did not involve any investigation into or determination of disputed questions of fact and long time had lapsed. The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition since the disputes related to the enforcement of a right or obligation under Industrial Disputes Act and the specific remedy is provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court noted the ratio of Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra) and held that the principles laid down therein would apply to the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: 11. We are of the firm opinion that the High Court erred in ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertain the proceedings relating to an industrial dispute and may not be read as a limitation on the Court's powers under Article 226, nevertheless it would need a very strong case indeed for the High Court to deviate from the principle that where a specific remedy is given by the statute, the person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided in that statute and in no other manner. xxx xxx xxx 14. Finally, it is an established practice that the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should have refused to do so where there are disputed questions of fact. In the present case, the nature of the employment of the workmen was in dispute. According to the appellant, the workmen had been appointed in connection with a particular project and there was no question of absorbing them or their continuing in service once the project was completed. Admittedly, when the matter was pending before the High Court, there were 29 such projects under execution or awarded. According to the respondent workmen, they were appointed as regular employees and they cited orders by which some of them were transferred to various projects at various places. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (supra) and catena of other judgments. The Supreme Court, however, referred the questions for adjudication to the Tribunal in view of the passage of time. Relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: 6. In a catena of decisions it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 7. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh [ (2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004 SCC (L S) 637] it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L S) 70], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would confirm the finding of the High Court that the proper remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars is to take recourse to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief, if possible, under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act. 10. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have failed to consider the basic issues. In the normal course we would have left it to the respondent to avail appropriate remedy under the Act. 11. The above aspects were highlighted in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees Union [(2005) 6 SCC 725 : 2005 SCC (L S) 899]. 12. A bare reading of Section 22 of the Act makes the position clear that where the dispute arises between an employer and employees with respect to the bonus payable under the Act or with respect to the application of the Act in public sector then such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the ID Act. 13. As disputed questions of fact were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees which was challenged by the Union before Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. There was difference of opinion between the members of the Division Bench. Markandey Katju, J. (then Judge of the High Court) held that the petitioners should avail the alternative remedy under the Industrial Law whereas U.K. Dhaon, J. held that various interim orders have been passed from time to time and it was not appropriate to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, after the writ petition was entertained. In view of the difference of opinion between the two judges of the Division Bench, the matter was placed before the third judge who agreed with the view expressed by U.K. Dhaon, J. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in view of equally efficacious remedy to the employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the employees to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law. The relevant portions of the said judgment are as under: 38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle 226 of the Constitution. (See also Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred [(1998) 6 SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L S) 1611] .) 40. The matter, however, did not rest on averments and counter-averments. The record reveals that the Corporation was convinced that retrenchment of certain employees was absolutely necessary. According to the Corporation, because of globalisation and entry of private sector in the business and also because of various orders passed by this Court from time to time in public interest litigation (PIL), the activities of the Corporation had been considerably curtailed. It was incurring losses and was not able to pay salaries and wages to its employees. It was, therefore, decided to take recourse to retrenchment in accordance with law. 41. Now, whether such action could or could not have been taken or whether the action was or was not in consonance with law could be decided on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Normally, when such disputed questions of fact come up for consideration and are required to be answered, appropriate forum would not be a writ court but a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal which has jurisdiction to go into the controv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) 2 SCC 575, the workers union filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the Typist-cum-Computer Clerks appointed by Mumbai Port Trust prior to 01st November, 1996 have to work for 6 hours a day whereas Typist-cum-Computer Clerks appointed after 01st November, 1996 have to work for 7 hours which is violative of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court further observed that an over liberal approach was unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. Para 14 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: 14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances' are made out. The Supreme Court further held that if the writ involves disputed questions of fact, the writ petition should not be entertained. The writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised, if there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 32. The Sole Test laid down by the Supreme Court for entertaining a writ petition relating to an industrial dispute is the existence of 'Exceptional circumstances'. If the Court is satisfied on the existence of 'Exceptional circumstances', then and only then, the Court shall proceed to ascertain whether the writ involves disputed questions of fact. If the Court finds 'Exceptional circumstances' but the writ involves disputed questions of fact, then the writ petition shall not be entertained, meaning thereby that the writ petition may be entertained only if the Court is satisfied firstly, on the existence of 'Exceptional circumstances' and secondly, the writ petition does not involve disputed questions of fact. 33. If there are no 'Exceptional circumstances' for exercise of writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld identify only one person who died in the aforesaid incident whereas two other dead bodies could not be identified. The widow and children of one of the deceased persons filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal which was contested by Railways on the ground that the accident was not an Untoward Incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. Vide judgment dated 28th October, 2014, the Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the objection of Railways and dismissed the claim petition. The claimants invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for compensation. The Railways did not dispute the accident dated 26th November, 2013 which resulted the death of three persons as well as the factum of filing of FIR and chargesheet against four employees of Railways. This Court exercised the writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the alternative remedy of a civil suit and awarded compensation of ₹ 18 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum which was gracefully paid by Railways. This is a clear case of 'Exceptional circumstances' for exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... italization charges for her treatment/amputation and therefore, she required the compensation immediately and all the relevant facts were matter of record and undisputed. This was a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction if the claimant had filed the writ petition instead of invoking the alternative statutory remedy. 37. In Writers Safeguard Ltd. v. Commissioner, Employees' Compensation FAO 154/2013, Om Prakash was driving an armored van carrying cash on 30th March, 2007 in Rajouri Garden when he noticed that two persons were trapped in a MTNL manhole in Rajouri Garden whereupon he got down from the van and went inside the manhole to rescue the two persons. He was able to rescue one person. When he went inside to rescue the second person, he was affected by the poisonous gases and he became unconscious and collapsed. The police registered FIR under Section 304A IPC. The widow, minor children and parents of Om Prakash filed an application for compensation against the employer in which the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded compensation of ₹ 4,42,740/- vide order dated 16th February, 2012. The employer challenged the award of the Commissioner, Employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of ₹ 5 lakhs claimed by them. However, the poor and illiterate legal representatives of the deceased were not willing to file the cross-objection for seeking enhancement. This Court exercised the suo moto power to enhance the decretal amount from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 11,59,052/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. This Court also recommended compassionate appointment to the widow/children of the deceased. This is a case where the legal representatives of the deceased availed the remedy before the Civil Court. However, the facts of this case clearly constitute 'Exceptional circumstances' and all facts were undisputed if the legal representatives of the deceased had invoked the writ jurisdiction. Findings 39. The petitioners have challenged the retrenchment of 297 employees by the respondent on 29th September, 2018. However, 78 out of 297 retrenched employees have accepted their retrenchment and have applied for withdrawal of their statutory benefits including gratuity etc. during the pendency of these writ petitions. 40. The retrenched employees have a statutory remedy to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in view of statutory remedy to the employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the employees to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 50. In our considered view, however, all such actions could be examined by an appropriate court/tribunal under the industrial law and not by a writ court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the impugned action of the Corporation of retrenchment of several employees is not in consonance with law, the employees are certainly entitled to relief from an appropriate authority. (Emphasis Supplied) 44. This case is also covered by Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust (supra) in which the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition in respect of an industrial dispute. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court further observed that an over liberal approach wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable, is the factor of delay, on the part of the High Court in disposing of the dispute. Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurrer. Nevertheless even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. (Emphasis Supplied) 46. In A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel (supra), the workmen raised the issue of delay of 20 years which had lapsed after the filing of the writ petition but the Supreme Court was not impressed. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the disputes to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: 14. However, because of the long passage of time (the writ petition was filed in 1996), the attendant circumstances of the case in the background noted above and in view of the agreement that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s disputed question of fact, apart from other disputed questions of fact, has to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. This issue arose for consideration in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra) in which U.P. State Developed Corporation retrenched 460 employees which was challenged before Allahabad High Court. According to the Corporation, its work had substantially reduced and was running into losses and the Board of Directors resolved to retrench 460 employees. The Allahabad High Court passed various interim orders and rejected the respondent's objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court held in clear terms that such disputed questions of fact are required to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim orders passed by the High Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: 39. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of assertions by the Corporation that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be entertained except only in 'Exceptional circumstances'. The sole test laid down by the Supreme Court for exercise of a writ jurisdiction is existence of 'Exceptional circumstances'. The Supreme Court has nowhere laid down the test that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised in all cases where the facts are not disputed by the respondents. 50. The Courts are required to maintain uniformity in applying the law. The principles of uniformity and predictability are very important principles of jurisprudence. If this writ petition with such complicated questions of fact and law is entertained then on what ground a writ petition of simple retrenchment or termination can be declined. Most of the retrenchment cases are simpler than the present case but the writ jurisdiction is not exercised as the law is clear and well settled that the rights under the Industrial Disputes Act have to be agitated before the Industrial Tribunal. 51. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not addressed any arguments on the existence of 'Exceptional circumstances' in these writ petitions. The only response of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in British Railways Board v. Herrington. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, the Supreme Court held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation. The Supreme Court observed as under:- 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. (Emphasis supplied) 53. Following the well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (supra), A.P. Foods (supra), State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Transport and Dock Workers Union (supra), this Court declines to exercise the writ jurisdiction in view of the statutory remedy available to the retrenched employees under Industrial Disputes Act. 54. W.P.(C) 10605/2018 was filed after W.P.(C) 10596/2018 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10605/2018 was required to disclose that W.P.(C) 10596/2018 on behalf of 297 retrenched employees has already been filed and W.P.(C) 10605/2018 would not have been entertained, if this fact would have been disclosed. It is not disputed that the Petitioner in the W.P.(C) 10605/2018 was aware of the filing of W.P.(C) 10596/2018 and the same set of counsels having same office address appeared for both the petitioners. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 10605/2018 made a false declaration that No o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 141 letters of retrenched employees in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 are all undated; the signatures of many retrenched employees do not tally with their signatures in their service record; the signatures of 35 employees in their letters in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 do not match with their letters in W.P.(C) 10605/2018; the petitioners have not filed any requisition for calling the general body meeting, notice of meeting, agenda notes of meeting. In any view of the matter, the petitioners have to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal to prove these disputed documents in accordance with law. The new averments and documents filed by the petitioners along with the written submissions dated 25th August, 2020 are beyond pleadings and therefore, the same are not taken on record. 58. This Court is of the view that both the petitioners have failed to show the authority to file the writ petition on behalf of 297 retrenched employees either in the writ petition or the documents filed along with the writ petition as on the date of filing of these writ petitions. 59. The respondent has raised number of other preliminary objections including the objection that PTI is not amenable to writ jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
