TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition in the face of an available industrial dispute mechanism involving disputed questions of fact; (ii) whether the workmen's absence could be treated as abandonment of service under the certified standing order and the termination sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition in the face of an available industrial dispute mechanism involving disputed questions of fact.
Analysis: The dispute arose out of rights and obligations created by the industrial legislation and was capable of adjudication by the statutory fora constituted for that purpose. Where resolution turns on contested facts, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass the statutory remedy, especially when the factual foundation of the claim remains unresolved. Delay in the writ proceedings did not justify short-circuiting the statutory process when the controversy still required evidence and fact-finding.
Conclusion: The writ petition should not have been entertained and the High Court erred in proceeding under Article 226.
Issue (ii): Whether the workmen's absence could be treated as abandonment of service under the certified standing order and the termination sustained.
Analysis: A person on legal strike and a person on illegal strike are both absent, but illegal strike cannot be treated as authorised absence. Under the relevant standing order, continued unauthorised absence could give rise to a presumption that the workman had left service, and the management had issued notices calling upon the workmen to resume duty. The existence of a strike, its legality, and the factual character of the absence were disputed matters that required determination by the appropriate forum. In the absence of a finding that the respondents were on strike or that the standing order procedure was violated, the High Court could not have quashed the termination on the merits.
Conclusion: The termination could not be invalidated in writ jurisdiction on the material before the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the parties were left to pursue the statutory industrial dispute remedy if otherwise available.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute depends on unresolved factual controversies and an efficacious industrial adjudication mechanism exists, writ jurisdiction should not be used to decide the merits or to bypass the statutory forum; an illegal strike does not, by itself, convert unauthorised absence into protected service.
TaxTMI 
