AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2019, whereby her services have been terminated.
In the considered opinion of this Court, an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, before the Rajasthan Non-
Government Educational Institutional Tribunal under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act of 1989â€). In the face of availability of such remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 21.02.1997 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in the case of K. Krishnamacharayulu & Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College and in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha
Srivastava decided on 14.02.2019 to contend that in case of violation of fundamental right, the High Court does have the power to issue writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
So far as judgment of Krishnamacharayulu(supra) is concerned, the High Court in that case had relegated the employee to avail the remedy under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947â€) before the Lower Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.
It is to be noticed that the remedy before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, in a given case may not be considered an efficacious remedy
as an employee has to depend upon State Government who may or may not refer a dispute to the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947; whereas under the Act of 1989, an appeal lies before the Tribunal, as a matter of course.
Other judgment in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya (supra), is also distinguishable, inasmuch as, facts of the case before Hon’ble the
Supreme Court do not indicate as to whether remedy of appeal in the State of West Bengal is available or not.
The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not help the petitioner’s case
in maintaining present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In both the judgments, issue was as to whether a writ can be issued
to a private school and they do not throw any light, as this Court is refusing to entertain the writ petition in light of existence of alternative remedy.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.