- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is challenging an order, passed in the year, 1988, whereby, his services were terminated. The petitioner is also praying for salary for the past period.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition is filed at a much belated stage and there is no explanation for the delay and, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. Secondly, the concerned Division where the petitioner was working has been closed down, as per the supplementary counter affidavit, especially paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit, filed by the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that for payment of wages, there is a separate Act, namely, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and there is an appellate provision also under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Otherwise also, under Section 33 -C of the Industrial Disputes Act, for all such types of benefits, application can be preferred. The petitioner is claiming reinstatement with back wages, which also cannot be given in a writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is not tenable on law and hence, the same deserved to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: '' (i) The petitioner is claiming reinstatement with back wages, mainly beca 10u /5se /20 1o 4 f th Pae ge 6 r6 eason that his services were terminated in the year, 1998. As per Annexure -3 to the memo of petition, the impugned order is dated 29th August, 1988 and the writ petition has been filed in the year, 2008. Thus, after one decade, a writ petition has been preferred and there is no explanation for such delay in preferring the writ petition. (ii) Looking to the supplementary counter affidavit, especially paragraph no. 4 thereof, which has been filed today, it appears that the concerned Mechanical Division where the petitioner was working has now been closed down and, therefore, no question of his reinstatement whatsoever arises. Lastly, the petitioner had worked in the year, 1998. Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 (iii) For payment of salary for the past period, if unpaid, there are provisions under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, including the provisions of appeal. Thus, there is already efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. I am not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so far as reinstatement with back wages is concerned, especially when the Division where the petitioner was working, has already been closed down. After one decade the present writ petition was filed and no industrial dispute has been raised by the present petitioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;