AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markendey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.09.2002. Heard Mr. V.
Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the first respondent, though the name of Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned
counsel is printed in the list.
The writ petition was filed against the second show cause notice dated 19.06.2002 in which it is alleged that the members of the writ petitioner
association had committed serious misconduct (assault) and were charge sheeted on 19.04.2002 and they were called upon to submit their
explanation against the proposed punishment of dismissal.
In our opinion, the writ petition itself was premature, since a writ can be filed only when a cause of action has arisen. In this case no dismissal
order was served, but the members of the petitioner-association were only directed to submit explanation for the proposed punishment of
dismissal. Hence, no cause of action had arisen when the writ petition was filed. (Subsequently, the dismissal order was passed) In our opinion the
writ petition itself should not have been entertained in view of the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Indian Additives Ltd. Vs. Indian
Additives Employees Union and Another, , in which we have followed the rulings of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v.
U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh 200 (4) SCC 268 as well as in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs.
Krishna Kant and Others, and it has been observed that such writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under the
Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, in The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, , and in Executive Engineer,
Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, , it has been held that ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against
show cause notices.
As the writ petition itself was premature, the impugned order passed in that writ petition is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. However, it is
open to the first respondent to challenge the order of dismissal before the appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding.
WAMP. No. 3279 of 2003 is closed.