- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 28-10-1997 passed by the Chief Personnel Manager, I. T. I. Ltd. , Naini, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Class IV employee categorised as Senior Technical Assistant (F Category) in I. T. I. Ltd. , Naini, Allahabad. He was suspended on certain charges on 5-10-1997. On 8-10- 1997 he was given a charge-sheet. THE suspension order was, however, revoked on 18-10-1997. THE petitioner was again charge-sheeted on 20-10-1997 and again suspended on 21-10-1997. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25-10-1997 he created disturbance in the enquiry proceeding and had broken the glasses of office at hill premises. On 27-10-1997 he made demonstration rebuking and threatening officers. The Enquiry Officer reported that it was not possible to carry on the enquiry proceeding. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge- sheet dated 8-10-1997 was considered by Respondent No. 2 and after considering his reply it was found that the petitioner was guilty of charges and dismissed him from service by the impugned order. I have heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. N. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondents.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise industrial dispute under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench in Chandrama Singh v. Manag ing Director U. P Co-operative Union and Ors. , 1991 (63) FLR 478, wherein it was held that if a workman is retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Section 6-M of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman has adequate and efficacious al ternative remedy by raising industrial dis pute and the High Court should not enter tain writ petition against the order of retrenchment in its extraordinary jurisdic tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 1715, the Supreme Court laid down various guidelines when the workman should be relegated to raise the dispute before the appropriate Court. It is relevant to mention the two tests laid down in this decision: "similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights and obligations created by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1947-which can be called 'sister enactments' to Industrial Disputes Act-and which do not provide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to ap proach the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of Section 2 (k) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Other wise, recourse to Civil Court is open. It is not correct to say that the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective for the reason that access to the forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate Government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the Govern ment is to be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous on ex fade. The power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the Government is entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting an adjudication. ";