- (1.) BY the Court.- This intra-Court appeal, at the instance of the writ petitioner-appellant, under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, arises out of an order dated 24.07.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39776 of 2001.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner', filed the writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 19.06.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to appoint him on the post of Clerk treating him as a retrenched employee, had been rejected. Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18201 of 1998, inter alia, contending that he is a retrenched employee and, therefore, fit to be considered for appointment on a Class-III post as a retrenched employee. The said writ petition was disposed off by this Court by order dated 21.01.2000 and while doing so, it directed as follows:- "In case the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is in fact a retrenched employee of Food and Civil Supply Department in that event the question of appointment of the petitioner on Class III post as retrenched employee shall be considered by the competent authority according to law and Government orders on the point." In the light of the aforesaid order, the Commissioner had passed the order impugned in the writ petition, which was filed on 27.11.2001. The writ petition was posted for consideration before this Court on 03.12.2001, and at the request of the Standing Counsel representing respondents, the writ petition was adjourned by granting one month's time to the respondents to file counter affidavit and two weeks' time thereafter to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. As directed by the Court, the respondents filed counter affidavit on 15.01.2002 and the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit on 16.04.2002. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 24.07.2009 when the learned Judge, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and Ors., (1991) 2 UPLBEC 898, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and it is this order, which has been impugned in the present appeal.
(3.) AS the order of the learned Judge is founded on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandrama Singh (supra), we deem it expedient to reproduce the ratio of the said case, which reads as follows:- "14. On the pleadings contained in the instant petition the petitioner should not be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has complained violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for redressal of his grievance an adequate and efficacious remedy of reference under the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act itself exists. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved the said remedy to be inadequate or inefficacious. He has also not demonstrated the existence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to permit him to by-pass the alternative remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner." ;