AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. S. Sinba, J.—Heard Sri Aditya Narayan, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Birla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is a ''workman'' employed with U. P. Industrial Cooperative Association Limited, which is an ''industry'', and the controversy sought to be raised in the instant petition is an industrial dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before the court otherwise.
For redressal of his grievance raised herein the petitioner has, therefore, adequate and effective statutory alternative remedy before the labour court. There is nothing on record to show that the said remedy is net adequate and effective remedy.
In view oi7 the existence and availability of the effective and adequate statutory remedy available to the petitioner before the labour court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director & others, reported in 1991 Lab and Industrial Cases at page 2413, also reported in 1991 Alld. Civil Journal at pages 784 the petitioner must be relegated to the aforesaid alternative remedy.
In the result, the petition is dismissed summarily in order to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, if so advised.