Case: UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT (S)NIGAM LIMITED &amp; ORS Vs. BALBIR SINGH

granted by Allahabad High Court permitting the appellants to file a fresh writ petition before the appropriate court dated 24.04.2014, will not make the writ petition tenable before the High Court of Uttarakhand and that too when a challenge is given to the impugned award before the Uttarakhand High Court after 19 years of its pendency. The learned Single Judge has also observed that even the institution of the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997 would be suffering from the principles of laches. 3.2 None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable at law. It cannot be disputed that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand the jurisdiction over judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand and not with the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun was as such required to be transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to the High Court of Uttarakhand in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Act. For whatever reason the said writ petition was not transferred. That does not mean that despite the above, jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would continue. Therefore subsequently when the writ petition came up before the High Court of Allahabad and having realized and observed that the jurisdiction against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand, the High Court of Allahabad rightly permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ petition pending before it with the liberty to the appellants to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court. In the present case, the appropriate court would be the High Court of Uttarakhand only. Therefore as such no error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid cannot be said to be adoring himself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. The judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court with the liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The order under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for transfer of pending matters before the Allahabad High Court to the High Court of Uttarakhand is an administrative order. If that power was not exercised and subsequently it was found that proceedings which were required to be transferred in exercise of power Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has not been transferred, it does not preclude the High Court of Allahabad to pass a judicial order and that too permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it and to file it before an appropriate court. As such the High Court in such a situation would be absolutely justified in permitting to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file it before an appropriate court having jurisdiction, on the creation of the new State – State of Uttarakhand. 3.3 The another reason which is assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned order is that if the writ petition is filed before it – the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997, it would be suffering from the principles of laches. The aforesaid reason is absolutely unsustainable. The High Court has not appreciated that the writ petition before the High Court was filed immediately which remained pending before the High Court of Allahabad for about 14 years and thereafter after the appellants withdrew the writ petition from the Allahabad High Court immediately the writ petition was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore there was no delay at all on the part of the appellants in challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun. Therefore in such a situation there was no question of any delay and laches. 4. Even otherwise once a judicial order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) and thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court against the judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it. Therefore the observations made by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the impugned order on the judicial order passed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 24.04.2014 permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) is absolutely unwarranted and is unsustainable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case is unsustainable.3.1 It cannot be disputed that as such on the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the jurisdiction over the Labour Court, Dehradun would only vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand. It also cannot be disputed that therefore as such the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun was required to be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad in exercise of power under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act.3.2 None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable at law. It cannot be disputed that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand the jurisdiction over judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand and not with the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun was as such required to be transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to the High Court of Uttarakhand in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Act. For whatever reason the said writ petition was not transferred. That does not mean that despite the above, jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would continue. Therefore subsequently when the writ petition came up before the High Court of Allahabad and having realized and observed that the jurisdiction against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun would vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand, the High Court of Allahabad rightly permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ petition pending before it with the liberty to the appellants to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court. In the present case, the appropriate court would be the High Court of Uttarakhand only. Therefore as such no error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid cannot be said to be adoring himself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. The judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court with the liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The order under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for transfer of pending matters before the Allahabad High Court to the High Court of Uttarakhand is an administrative order. If that power was not exercised and subsequently it was found that proceedings which were required to be transferred in exercise of power Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has not been transferred, it does not preclude the High Court of Allahabad to pass a judicial order and that too permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it and to file it before an appropriate court. As such the High Court in such a situation would be absolutely justified in permitting to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file it before an appropriate court having jurisdiction, on the creation of the new State – State of Uttarakhand.3.3 The another reason which is assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned order is that if the writ petition is filed before it – the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997, it would be suffering from the principles of laches. The aforesaid reason is absolutely unsustainable. The High Court has not appreciated that the writ petition before the High Court was filed immediately which remained pending before the High Court of Allahabad for about 14 years and thereafter after the appellants withdrew the writ petition from the Allahabad High Court immediately the writ petition was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore there was no delay at all on the part of the appellants in challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun. Therefore in such a situation there was no question of any delay and laches.4. Even otherwise once a judicial order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) and thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court against the judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it. Therefore the observations made by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the impugned order on the judicial order passed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 24.04.2014 permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) is absolutely unwarranted and is unsustainable.