Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16031 of 2017
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adarsh Bhushan,U.S. Singh Visen
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who appears for the respondent no.3 - UPSRTC.
The respondent no. 3 has filed an affidavit saying that it has no concern with the petitioner as the petitioner is an employee of the respondent no. 2 i.e. Agra Mathura City Transport Ltd. The Agra Mathura City Transport Ltd has not been issued notice by this Court.
It appears that Agra Mathura City Transport Ltd is a private company which plies buses on Agra Mathura route on contract being given from URSRTC. The petitioner is an employee of a private contractor.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
It is left open for the petitioner to file his claim before the competent Labour Court in terms of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajashthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Kant 1995 (5) SCC 75.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that a counter affidavit has been called by this Court earlier and therefore this writ petition is maintainable.
This Court is aware of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & another Vs.
U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti & others 2008 (12) SCC 675 where the Supreme Court has said that even if the writ petition is admitted and has been pending for long, the availability of the statutory remedy can be looked into by the Court and the writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Arif