2003 (8) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever, reserved the right to either accept or reject the applications for voluntary retirement. The petitioner filed application dated 2.1.98 for voluntary retirement. However, a few days thereafter, he intimated the Union that he wanted to withdraw the application seeking for voluntary retirement and the matter was taken up by the Union on his behalf on 5.1.98. A formal letter dated 7.1.98 was also submitted by the petitioner before the respondent withdrawing the earlier application dated 2.1.98. However, on 13.1.98, without considering the letter regarding withdrawal of voluntary retirement, the application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the management and subsequently the petitioner was relieved from the services on 12.2.98. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 (I) LLJ 274 (ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION AND OTHERS) in support of his contention that a writ would be maintainable even against a person depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The observation in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is to the following effect :- 10. The expensive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is wide as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can affect any personeven a private individual-and be available for any (other purpose) even one for which another remedy may exist. The amendment to Article 226 in 1963 inserting Article 22 6(1A) reiterates the targets of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act after retaining the writ petition filed by the bank, for a period of ten years. If the facts were in dispute probably the lapse of considerable time would not have weighed much because, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, we are of the view that as the facts necessary for deciding the validity of the order dt. April 1 , 1982, are not in dispute and as on today more than 12 years have elapsed, in the interest or justice and also to ensure that the relief, if any entitled to by the appellant, should have it at the earliest. We accordingly, answer the first point in the aff....