RAJEEV KUMAR v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 143335
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RAJEEV KUMAR v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [2017] INSC 536 (17 July 2017)

Issue :- The appellant approached the High Court, aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Cooperative Bank.

Facts :- NON-REPORTABLE

                                            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
                                             CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9140 OF 2017
                               [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18174 OF 2017]
                                          (@ DIARY NO(S). 15212/2017)


                        RAJEEV KUMAR                                                             PETITIONER(S)
                                                                 VERSUS
                        LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.                                RESPONDENT(S)

The appellant approached the High Court, aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Cooperative Bank. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice, in our view.It appears that the appellant has approached the High Court challenging the denial of work and initially the appellant was granted an interim relief. However, the writ petition was subsequently disposed of by holding that the remedy open to the appellant is to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per Industrial Disputes Act. According to the appellant, unfortunately the judgment was not communicated to him and, therefore, there was considerable delay in approaching the High Court, in Signature Not Verified appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.07.20 holding that there is a huge delay of more than 18:33:58 IST Reason:eleven years in approaching the Division Bench.

Judgment :- Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the appellant, in the interest of justice, should be granted liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1072 of 2005, which reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the judgment dated 27.7.2004 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.3281 of 2003 (Ved Bhushan v. The Divisional Manager/Senior Manager, L.I.C. Branch Office Muzaffarnagar). He contends that the facts of the present writ petition are covered by the aforesaid judgment under which the petitioner has alternative remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.”

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of making it clear that in case the appellant takes recourse to the remedy, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge in view of the decision in Ved Bhushan v. The Divisional Manager/Senior Manager, L.I.C. Branch Officer Muzaffarnagar, within a period of two months from today, the same may not be dismissed by the Forum on the ground of delay. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.