# In State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 620 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-08-17 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 968 of 2004 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-state-of-haryana-v-suman-dutta-40278 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-Industrywhether U.P. State Handloom Corporation is within meaning of Industry?-held- 'yes'. Constitution of India Article 226alternative remedy-employee working with Handloom Corporation is workmantermination order challenged under writ jurisdiction-held- Petitioner has statutory remedy-writ held not maintainable. Held: Para 10 U.P. State Handloom Corporation as well as State Urban Development Agency and District Development Agency are industries. Hence if the writ petitioners wanted to challenge their retrenchment they should have raised an industrial dispute and requested the Government to make a reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The High Court should not ordinarily interfere when there is an alternative remedy http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) V. Dinesh Chandra Saxena and others 621 before the Labaour Court/Tribunal. Practice of Procedure-Grant of interim relief-termination order stayed by interim order-amounts to grant if final relief-in the garb of interim order final order should not be passed. Held: Para 6 & 7 In State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311 the Supreme Court held that a termination order should not be stayed by the High Court by means of an interim order. The Supreme Court in that decision observed: "We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in staying the order of termination as interim measure in the pending writ petition. By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same." The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Case law discussed: 2000 (10) SCC-311 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 620 and interest from terminal benefits cannot be included. Thus, if these amounts are removed from the total income shown, nothing would remain nor can anyone come to the conclusion that the financial position of the family members was sound. In State Bank of India and others vs. Ram Piyarey, 2001(2) ESC(Alld.)876, a Division Bench of this Court held:- "In our opinion, the learned single Judge was correct in holding that the receipt of family pension by the widow and a sum of Rs.1.42 lacs paid to widow after deducting the loan cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is common knowledge that the widow is entitled to family pension and other benefits in the event her husband died in harness. If the plea of the Bank is accepted then no appointment can be made on compassionate ground and the scheme of the Bank shall have no meaning. We are of the view that the learned single judge was quite justified in allowing the writ petition." 8. The judgment in Ram Piyarey case (supra), was decided on 17.4.2001 whereas the judgment passed in Jadawati case was decided on 27.7.1991. Since Ram Piyarey judgment is the latest judgment, the same is binding upon me. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.1.2002 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the observations made above and after considering the financial hardship, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of the communication of this order. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.8.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. Special Appeal No. 968 of 2004 State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) ...Appellant Versus Dinesh Chandra Saxena and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Neeraj Tiwari Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri S.N. Singh Sri R.D. Khare, C.S.C. U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-Industrywhether U.P. State Handloom Corporation is within meaning of Industry?-held- 'yes'. Constitution of India Article 226alternative remedy-employee working with Handloom Corporation is workmantermination order challenged under writ jurisdiction-held- Petitioner has statutory remedy-writ held not maintainable. Held: Para 10 U.P. State Handloom Corporation as well as State Urban Development Agency and District Development Agency are industries. Hence if the writ petitioners wanted to challenge their retrenchment they should have raised an industrial dispute and requested the Government to make a reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The High Court should not ordinarily interfere when there is an alternative remedy http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) V. Dinesh Chandra Saxena and others 621 before the Labaour Court/Tribunal. Practice of Procedure-Grant of interim relief-termination order stayed by interim order-amounts to grant if final relief-in the garb of interim order final order should not be passed. Held: Para 6 & 7 In State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311 the Supreme Court held that a termination order should not be stayed by the High Court by means of an interim order. The Supreme Court in that decision observed: "We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in staying the order of termination as interim measure in the pending writ petition. By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same." The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Case law discussed: 2000 (10) SCC-311 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned interim order of the learned single Judge dated 16.7.2004 in writ petition no. 26317 of 2004. 2. It appears that the respondents were employees of the U.P. State Handloom Corporation and they had been sent on deputation to the State Urban Development Agency. They were retrenched from their parent department, that is U.P. State Handloom Corporation. As a consequence, their services were also terminated in the State Urban 3. Development Agency where they had been sent on deputation. By the impugned interim order the order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the State Urban Development Agency terminating the services on deputation of these employees have been stayed and the learned single Judge has further directed the authorities to allow the petitioners to continue in service in state Urban Development Agency and District Urban Development Agency. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in detail we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Firstly by the said interim order final relief has been granted which cannot be done as held by this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, Special Appeal No. 555 of 2004 decided on 12.7.2004. The entire case law on the point has been considered in the aforesaid division bench decision and hence we are not repeating the same. 5. The consequence of the interim order dated 16.7.2004 would be that the writ petitioners would continue in the service of State Urban Development Agency and the District Urban Development Agency. In our opinion this amounts to giving final relief. 6. In State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311 the Supreme Court held that a termination order should not be stayed by the High Court by means of an interim order. The Supreme Court in that decision observed: "We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in staying the http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 622 order of termination as interim measure in the pending writ petition. By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same." 7. The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 8. Apart from the above we may also mention that the parent department of the writ petitioners was the U.P. State Handloom Agency and the District Urban Development agency. When their services in the parent department was terminated (whether by way retrenchment, dismissal or otherwise) their services in the deputationist department automatically comes to an end. This is because a person has his lien only in the parent department and not in the deputationist department. If his service in the parent department is terminated then he loses his lien in the parent department and since he has no lien in the deputationist department obviously he cannot continue in the latter department. 9. Moreover, the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy of challenging the retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act/U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and hence in our opinion the writ petition itself should not have been entertained vide U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karmchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268. 10. The definition of industry in the Industrial Disputes Act has been very widely interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 969 and in our opinion on the U.P. State Handloom Corporation as well as State Urban Development Agency and District Development Agency are industries. Hence if the writ petitioners wanted to challenge their retrenchment they should have raised an industrial dispute and requested the Government to make a reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The High Court should not ordinarily interfere when there is an alternative remedy before the Labaour Court/Tribunal. 11. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 12. With the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal we are also disposing off the writ petition no. 26317 of 2004 in terms of the above order. Appeal Allowed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, A.C.J. THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. Special Appeal No. 950 of 2004 Om Prakash ...Petitioner/Appellant Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.M. Zaidi Sri M.H. Khan Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India-Art. 226-Writ Petition-Alternative remedyMaintainability- U.P. Public Service