Court To Refrain From Intervening In Cases Where There Is An Effective Alternate Remedy, Unless Compelling Reasons To Do So: Delhi High Court

Background of Facts

Maya and Ors. (Petitioners) were employed by State Bank of Mysore (Respondent), which later merged with State Bank of India, effective from April 1, 2017, as sweeper/sweeper-cum-peon at various branches in the Delhi region, between 2004 and 2010 on a temporary basis. On March 31, 2017, the petitioners received retrenchment notices due to the impending merger of six subsidiary/associate banks, including State Bank of Mysore with State Bank of India. The merger scheme stipulated that only permanent employees on the rolls of the six subsidiary/associate banks would be absorbed and continue their services with the State Bank of India. The Petitioners, aggrieved by the order of retrenchment, approached the court seeking reinstatement and regularization of their services.

The Petitioners contended, inter alia, that their services were wrongfully terminated by the respondent despite their duties being of permanent nature and their long-term employment over ten years. The petitioners also claimed that they were entitled to regularization based on seniority. The petitioners argued that the respondent had a policy for regularizing employees on this basis. They also asserted that the respondent had failed to prepare a seniority list and instead used a “pick and choose” method, contrary to the policy and settled law. Further, the petitioners contended that post-merger, effective April 1, 2017, only permanent employees were absorbed. It was claimed that they were assured of regularization before the merger, but received retrenchment notices on March 31, 2017 and that the merger scheme was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by absorbing only permanent employees. Further, the petitioners argued that they had worked for over 240 days in a calendar year for the last ten years, which entitled them to regularization.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that the petitions is not maintainable since the petitioners, being “workmen,” have an efficacious alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that all employment and retrenchment disputes be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. They contended that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and should not be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy is available, making the writ petition not maintainable. Further, the respondent contended that the retrenchment order complied with Section 25-F of the Act, which required payment of compensation equivalent to 15 days of pay for every completed year of service, and that this compensation was paid to the petitioners. It was also argued that according to the settled law, wrongful termination of a daily wager due to non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Act entitles the aggrieved person to monetary compensation, not reinstatement. Since the petitioners were employed on a temporary basis and called to work intermittently as needed, there was no continuity of service. Additionally, the respondent contended that mere completion of 240 days of work does not entitle a workman to regularization in service and as such, the petitioners' claim for regularization is not supported by law.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is supervisory, discretionary, and extraordinary. It should not be invoked if there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the litigant. The court referred to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, emphasizing that litigants must approach the appropriate forum closest in the judicial hierarchy to avoid inefficiencies and potential forum shopping. The court also highlighted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides a detailed mechanism for resolving industrial disputes through the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment of Premier Automobiles Ltd. V. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496 wherein it was held that where an effective statutory remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained unless 'exceptional circumstances' exist. However, the court acknowledged some exceptions to the rule, such as when the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the law, violated fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or breached the principles of natural justice. However, the court found that no such exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the petitioners. Further, the court reiterated that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary. Courts generally refrain from intervening in cases where there is an effective alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

Based on the above observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 705

Case No. W.P. (C). No. 4455/2017

Counsels for the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Saini, Mr. Ravi Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rishesh Mani Tripathi, Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Mr. Akshit Kapur, Mr. Aditya Saxena.