U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. versus R.S. PANDEY AND ANR.

U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. versus R.S. PANDEY AND ANR.

Although the High Court was entitled in principle to entertain a writ despite availability of statutory remedies because it had considered the efficacy of the alternative remedy, the facts warranted interference: the final order of dismissal was passed before the employer received the employee's show cause reply; consequently the proper remedy is to set aside the High Court's directions and to direct a fresh departmental enquiry to be completed from the stage of service of the show cause notice and consideration of any reply, with reinstatement of respondent No.1 without back wages solely for the purpose of completing disciplinary proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.; Respondents: R.S. Pandey and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court (s.a. No. 743 of 1996), Civil Appeal No. 1346 of 2005
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment set aside to extent indicated
Legal Topics
Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Alternative Remedies, Domestic/departmental Enquiry, Principles of Natural Justice, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Labour Law Constitutional Law Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Alternative Remedies Domestic/departmental Enquiry Principles of Natural Justice Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.

Appellant

R.S. Pandey and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court (s.a. No. 743 of 1996), Civil Appeal No. 1346 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 despite availability of statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether termination/dismissal was in gross violation of principles of natural justice because the final order was passed before receipt of the show cause reply
  3. 3 What is the appropriate relief when departmental enquiry is vitiated by failure to consider the show cause reply

Ratio Decidendi

Although the High Court was entitled in principle to entertain a writ despite availability of statutory remedies because it had considered the efficacy of the alternative remedy, the facts warranted interference: the final order of dismissal was passed before the employer received the employee's show cause reply; consequently the proper remedy is to set aside the High Court's directions and to direct a fresh departmental enquiry to be completed from the stage of service of the show cause notice and consideration of any reply, with reinstatement of respondent No.1 without back wages solely for the purpose of completing disciplinary proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment set aside to extent indicated

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court as affirmed by the Division Bench
  • A fresh enquiry shall be completed within four months starting from the stage of service of the show cause notice and consideration of any reply, in accordance with the standing orders