R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER was appointed as an agent by Syndicate Bank for its Branch for collection of pigmy deposits. Terms and conditions of the appointment are contained in the appointment order, according to which, petitioner will be paid a commission of 3% on the total collection made by him and he will not be a member of the staff of the Bank and the rules relating to the conditions of service of the staff will not apply to him. It is also mentioned therein that petitioner can renounce the agency after giving a month's written notice to the Branch and the Bank can also terminate the agency at any time without giving him any notice or assigning any reason. By its order dated 22 -10-1993, the petitioner's agency was terminated by the Bank. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is workman and by the impugned order he has been retrenched from service without complying with the conditions of Section 25-F of Central Industrial Disputes Act and Section 6-A of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. In order to prove that petitioner is a workman, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition in which it has been stated that Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad has held that the agents of the Bank like petitioner are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents has, apart from disputing the above submission, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that if the petitioner is treated as a workman then his remedy is before the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act and this writ petition should not be entertained and for this proposition he has placed reliance on a decision of full bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, Cooperative Union, Lucknow, 1991 (2) UP LB EC 898 = 1991 (2) AWC 1005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, submitted that the full bench decision of this Court does not lay down correct law and in his support he has placed reliance on the following decisions ; (1) The Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries, AIR 1979 SC 1889, (2) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147, (3) People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473,(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186, (5) Krishana Kumar Dubey v. U. P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation, 1989 (58) FLR 100 (6) Management of Indian Bank v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, 1990 LLR 164 and (7) Narendra Pal Gahlot v. State of U. P., 1994 LLR 21. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 20-1-1994 by dictating the judgment in the open court. But before the above order could be signed, learned counsel for the petitioner on the next day requested for further hearing of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard again when he contended that the aforesaid decision of full bench of this court does not lay down correct law and in this connection placed relience on the desison which have been mentioned hereinbefore. After hearing the learned counsel the judgment was reserved. Consequently the judgment dictated the open Court on 20-1-1994 was not signed. Before going into merit of the case, it is necessary to decide the preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. -
(3.) FULL Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director (Supra) was called upon to decide the question as to whether this Court should or should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed against the order of termination/retrenchment of a workman passed in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act/6-N of the U. P. Act, in view of the availability of alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. This Court held that retrenchment of a workman in violation of Section 25-F/6-N is an ''Industrial Dispute" within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and the forum for resolving such a dispute is Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court constituted under Industrial Disputes Act, it was further held that ordinarily the remedy before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act against illegal retrenchment is an adequate and efficacious remedy which has to be availed of by the workman and it is not open to. him to challenge such an order by means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless he pleads and proves that the remedy before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is not an adequate and efficacious remedy. Relevant extract from the judgment of this Court is reproduced below : "Ordinarily, remedy of reference, envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, is an adequate and efficacious remedy available to a person aggrieved by an illegal retrenchment. Of course, the aggrieved person can always prove that, on the facts and circumstances of his case, the remedy is neither adequate nor efficacious. But, unless he discharges the onus of proving that the remedy of reference is either inadequate or inefficacious he should pursue the remedy of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to emphasise that it would not be enough for the person pleading inadequacy or inefficacy of the relief of reference under the Industrial Disputes Acts to make merely a bald statement that remedy of reference is either inadequate or inefficaci - outs. It is imperative for him to clearly plead, demonstrate and prove as to how and in what manner the remedy of reference is inadequate or inefficacious, and in the absence of requisite pleading and material in support thereof it would not be permissible for him to raise the plea of inadequacy or enefficacy of the remedy of reference under the Industrial Disputes Acts." After the aforesaid decision of full bench of this Court it was expected that the controversy regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Stands concluded till such time this decision is over railed or a contrary view is taken by the Supreme Court or Larger Bench of this Court. But, writ petitions against the order of retrenchment are being filed in this court regularly, although, the law declared by the full bench still stands. A full bench decision is binding and it is not permissible to ignore the law laid down by it unless a contrary view has been taken by a larger bench or by the Supreme Court.;