COURT’S DECISION
The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge that refused to entertain a writ petition against a disciplinary penalty imposed on an employee of a public corporation. The Court held that the issues raised were squarely pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and that the appellant was attempting to circumvent the appropriate statutory forum, amounting to forum shopping.
The Court reinforced that when an effective statutory mechanism exists, writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass or pre-empt the outcome of ongoing adjudication.
FACTS
The appellant was employed as a Steno-Typist since 1986 and superannuated in 2024. Between 2018–2019, he submitted medical reimbursement claims amounting to approximately ₹2.82 lakhs. The employer suspected the bills were fabricated and issued a chargesheet in 2021 under Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules.
The inquiry concluded in December 2021, and in March 2022 the Disciplinary Authority imposed:
- reduction of pay for one year,
- recovery of the alleged fraudulent amount, and
- withdrawal of post-retirement medical benefits under the Medical Attendance & Treatment Rules.
The appellate and reviewing authorities upheld the penalty.
Parallelly, the Government referred disputes relating to applicability of the disciplinary rules and the validity of penalties to the CGIT. Despite this, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the penalty and restoration of medical benefits.
The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the issues overlapped with those pending before the Tribunal. The appellant then filed this appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether the writ petition could be maintained when the same issues were already pending before the CGIT, the statutory forum under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether withholding post-retirement medical benefits raised a separate, independent issue not covered by the CGIT reference.
- Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to challenge disciplinary findings that fall within statutory adjudication.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The appellant contended that he was a “workman” covered under Standing Orders and therefore the CDA Rules did not apply to him. He argued that the inquiry suffered from grave procedural irregularities — the inquiry was closed abruptly, he was not given adequate opportunity to present his defence, and the Disciplinary Authority sought his witness list on the very day management closed its evidence.
He argued that invoking the medical rules to withdraw post-retirement benefits was illegal because that clause was not part of the chargesheet, thereby violating natural justice. The appellant further contended that the Single Judge wrongly held that the issue of medical benefits was connected to the CGIT proceedings, asserting that the Tribunal had no reference on post-retirement benefits.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondents argued that the appellant was seeking multiple forums for the same relief and attempting to obtain a favourable outcome that would prejudicially impact ongoing CGIT proceedings. They maintained that the primary issues — legality of disciplinary action, applicability of rules, proportionality of punishment — were already before the CGIT, and the High Court should not entertain parallel proceedings.
They emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used as an alternate remedy where a statutory mechanism is already engaged.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
The Court analysed the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act and reiterated that disputes concerning disciplinary action against workmen must ordinarily be addressed by the specialized adjudicator — the CGIT. The High Court underscored that Article 226 powers must be exercised cautiously and cannot be employed to disrupt ongoing statutory proceedings.
The Court held that Rule 18 of the Medical Attendance & Treatment Rules, which authorizes cancellation of medical facilities for misuse, is inherently linked to the disciplinary charge of submitting fraudulent bills. Therefore, medical benefits cannot be treated as a standalone issue; they directly flow from whether the charges are established — a question pending before the Tribunal.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
The Court relied on two landmark Supreme Court decisions:
1. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karamchari Sangh (2004) 4 SCC 268
Reference in present judgment:
The Supreme Court held that industrial disputes relating to rights created under the ID Act must be adjudicated only before forums under that Act and not before writ courts. The High Court cited this to show that disciplinary matters concerning workmen must go to the Tribunal, not Article 226.
2. Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 771
Reference in present judgment:
This case lays down the law of alternate remedy — writ jurisdiction must not be invoked when an effective statutory mechanism exists unless exceptions such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction apply. The High Court noted that none of these exceptions applied to the appellant.
Both precedents were used to fortify the rule that writ petitions should not interfere with statutory adjudication in labour matters.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court held that the appellant’s issues — including the applicability of CDA Rules, proportionality of punishment, and the validity of recovery and withdrawal of medical benefits — were all already part of the reference before the CGIT. Any decision by the writ court would “affect the proceedings before the Tribunal,” violating judicial propriety.
Further, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that the appellant was “engaging in forum shopping,” attempting to secure relief in the writ court that would influence the Tribunal’s adjudication.
It held that the Tribunal’s findings on whether the bills were fraudulent would directly determine the question of entitlement to medical benefits, and therefore the High Court could not decide this issue independently.
CONCLUSION
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding:
- The issues raised were fully covered by the CGIT reference.
- The appellant was attempting to bypass the statutory forum.
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where an alternate remedy is already in motion.
- The matter must be decided by the Tribunal, and the appellant must pursue remedies there.
IMPLICATIONS
- Reinforces that industrial disputes must be adjudicated by statutory tribunals, not writ courts.
- Clarifies that post-retirement benefits linked to misconduct cannot be isolated from disciplinary proceedings.
- Strengthens judicial policy against forum shopping.
- Serves as a warning to employees attempting to bypass designated forums.
- Enhances doctrinal clarity on alternate remedy and labour adjudication.
FAQs
1. Can an employee bypass the Industrial Tribunal and approach the High Court directly?
Generally no. When a statutory remedy exists, the High Court will decline jurisdiction unless exceptional grounds exist.
2. Are post-retirement medical benefits independent of disciplinary findings?
Not when the benefit is withdrawn due to alleged misuse — it becomes inseparable from the disciplinary charge.
3. What happens if issues raised in a writ petition are already before the Tribunal?
The High Court will dismiss the writ to prevent parallel adjudication and conflicting findings