H.L.GOKHALE, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. K.P. Agarwal learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss. Bushramaryam for the appellant. Counsel for the respondents is not present.
(2.) THE only question in this appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing the appellant-petitioner to resort to alternative remedy i.e. to take his dispute to the Labour Court. The case of the appellant is that he was working as a Depot Manager from 1981. He was suspended under an order dated 20th June, 1998. After the enquiry he was found guilty and, therefore, his services were terminated. He filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 8358 of 2004 to challenge the order by which his services were terminated. The learned Single Judge straight away accepted the submission of the respondents that the appellant had approached the High Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various judgments wherein it has been held that if alternative remedy is available to the litigant concerned he must avail it.
(3.) IN the instant case, however, the principle submission of the appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge as to whether the appellant-workman could be directed to approach the forum under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The definition of a workman is given under Section 2(z) of the Act. It is in pari materia with the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A workman includes a person who has been doing any manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. However, it does not include a person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or who is employed in a supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem.;