Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited & Ors. vs Balbir Singh

HELD: 1.1 On the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the jurisdiction over the Labour Court, Dehradun would only vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun was required to be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad in exercise of power under Sub-Section(2) of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. As the writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad was against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun, Sub-Section

(3) of Section 35 shall not be applicable. Therefore, as such, the writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad was required to be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand. However for whatever reason the writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court of Allahabad was not transferred. Therefore, when the writ petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad came up for hearing before the Allahabad High Court, the High Court permitted the appellants to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file the same before the appropriate court i.e. in the instant case the High Court of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. However, after 5 years of filing of writ petition, the Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the said writ petition by observing that the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court was not justified in permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition before the appropriate court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand observed that by permitting the appellants to withdraw writ petition pending before it with liberty to file the writ petition before the appropriate court-High Court of Uttarakhand, the Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Allahabad barged into to override the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act by adoring himself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court as contemplated under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act for transfer of pending matters before the Allahabad High Court. It is observed by the Single Judge that the liberty granted by Allahabad High Court permitting the appellants to file a fresh writ petition before the appropriate court, would not make the writ petition tenable before the High Court of Uttarakhand and that too when a challenge is given to the award before the Uttarakhand High Court after 19 years of its pendency. The Single Judge also observed that even the institution of the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997 would be suffering from the principles of laches. [Para 3.1][98-B-C; 99D-H; 100-A-D]

1.2 The judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court with the liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions contained under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act as observed by the Single Judge in the impugned order. The order under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for transfer of pending matters before the Allahabad High Court to the High Court of Uttarakhand is an administrative order. If that power was not exercised and subsequently it was found that proceedings which were required to be transferred in exercise of power Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has not been transferred, it does not preclude the High Court of Allahabad to pass a judicial order and that too permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it and to file it before an appropriate court. As such the High Court in such a situation would be absolutely justified in permitting to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file it before an appropriate court having jurisdiction, on the creation of the new State-State of Uttarakhand. [Para 3.2][101-A-D]

1.3 The another reason which is assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned order is that if the writ petition is filed before it-the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997, it would be suffering from the principles of laches. The said reason is absolutely unsustainable. The High Court has not appreciated that the writ petition before the High Court was filed immediately which remained pending before the High Court of Allahabad for about 14 years and thereafter after the appellants withdrew the writ petition from the Allahabad High Court immediately the writ petition was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore, there was no delay at all on the part of the appellants in challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun. Therefore, in such a situation there was no question of any delay and laches. [Para 3.3][101-E-G]

1.4 Even otherwise once a judicial order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) and thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, the Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court against the judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the instant case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it. Therefore, the observations made by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the impugned order on the judicial order passed by the Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 24.04.2014 permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) is absolutely unwarranted and is unsustainable. The impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case is unsustainable, and as such quashed and set aside. [Para 3-5][101-G-H; 102-A-E]