SATYANARAYAN vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and ORS

CW/13968/2017HC RajasthanRJHC02105744201726 August 2017Bench: K. S. JHAVERI1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an alternative and effective remedy is available to the petitioner before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court observed that the dispute regarding the petitioner's removal from service can be examined by the Tribunal. The Court expected that if the petitioner raises such a dispute before the Labour Court, it would be addressed and decided within a period of 9 months. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of availability of an alternative remedy. The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim of wrongful removal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. R.K. Sharma, a daily wage Waterman at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), claims wrongful removal from service and replacement by another individual. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, challenging his removal. The respondents are the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and its various offices. The assessment year(s) are not mentioned. The dispute concerns the petitioner's employment status and termination.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning the wrongful removal of a daily wage employee from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, when an alternative effective remedy is available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, implicitly argues that the removal was wrongful and that the High Court is the appropriate forum to address this grievance. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner as none were present. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, by being arrayed as parties, implicitly contend that the writ petition is not maintainable. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13968 / 2017 lR;ukjk;.k 'kekZ iq= Jhjke’kj.k 'kekZ mez djhc 55 lky fuoklh edku ua0 122] th.kekrk dk [kqjk] lwjtiksy cktkj] jkexat t;iqjA ---------izkFkhZ&;kph cuke 1- Jheku vk;dj vihy vf/kdj.k eqEcbZ tfj, jftLVªkj 2- Jheku fMIVh jftLVªkj vk;dj vihy vf/kdj.k] 11oh eafty yksd uk;d Hkou] [kku cktkj] ubZ fnYyh 3- Jheku lgk;d jftLVªkj vk;dj vihy vf/kdj.k t;iqjA --------vizkFkhZx.k&izfroknhx.k _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 26/08/2017

The petitioner claims to have been working on the post of Waterman on daily wages in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and claims that he was wrongfully removed from service and another person has been appointed in his place. Apparently, the dispute can be examined before the Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence alternate effective remedy is available to the petitioner. If the petitioner raises such a dispute, it is expected that the Labour Court shall address to the statement of claim and decide the dispute within 9 months preferably thereafter. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. M.Meena/100

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →