AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.S. Sinha, J.—Sri Rakesh Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2, submits that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to raise an industrial dispute and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There is force in the submission of Sri Tewari. In fact, the submission is fortified by a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Union Lucknow (1991) 2 UP LB EG 898.
Besides the existence and availability of effective alternative remedy by way of raising of an industrial dispute, from the averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, it appears that the Petitioner has already filed a Civil Stilt in the court of the Munsif (North) Lucknow, substantially, for the same relief as is claimed herein.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the court declines to interfere in the matter The petition is dismissed accordingly. The ad-interim order shall stand discharged.