Doctrine of election inapplicable; non-speaking SLP dismissal doesn't bar filing under Article 226; writ to be heard on merits

The SC held that the doctrine of election did not apply and that a non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition does not bar the petitioner from approaching the HC under Article 226. The Court distinguished the earlier authority and ruled that the HC should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to consider the writ petition on merits rather than refuse it solely because an SLP was dismissed in limine. The SC set aside the HC order and remanded the writ petition to the HC for expeditious disposal on merits, noting the matter concerns claimed service benefits.

---

---

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.

---