Availability of alternative statutory remedy warrants dismissal of writ petition involving disputed facts despite admission and long pendency.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Single Window Operator at the Vjaypur Branch of the State Bank of Indore.

Following complaints of illegal withdrawals in 2006-07, the Petitioner was suspended and issued a charge-sheet.

After an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued a removal order dated 31.12.2008.

An appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 06.04.2009 via a non-speaking order.

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2016 seeking to quash the removal and appellate orders and for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Whether the High Court can dismiss a writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy after the petition has been pending for several years

2. Whether the Petitioner, as a bank employee in a clerical cadre, must exhaust the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before approaching the High Court under Article 226

The Court applied the principle of "self-imposed limitation" under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which dictates that writ jurisdiction should not typically be exercised when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (2008) 12 SCC 675, which held that the mere admission of a petition or passing of interim orders does not bar its dismissal on the ground of alternative remedy.

Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) SCC Online SC 1500 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 to establish that discretionary jurisdiction should be refused unless there is a violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute.

Division Bench ruling in State Bank of India v. Vikram Sharma (W.A. No. 36/12) and Jitendra Kumar v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 3479/2005), which clarified that clerical bank employees are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s grievance involved "multiple disputed questions of facts" regarding the alleged illegal withdrawals and subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Referring to the Supreme Court's precedents, the Court reasoned that the existence of a statutory forum (the Central Government Industrial Tribunal or CGIT) is a relevant consideration even in long-pending matters.

The Court distinguished the Petitioner’s reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd. v. Kailash Chandra (W.A. No. 240/2018), noting that in that case, there were no disputed questions of fact.

Since the Petitioner is a clerical cadre employee, the Court determined that the Industrial Disputes Act provides a more suitable and efficacious forum for fact-finding than the writ court under Article 226.

It disposed of the petition with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the CGIT within one month from the date of the order. The CGIT was directed to decide the dispute within three months on its merits, passing a reasoned and speaking order, while ignoring any delay caused by the pendency of the writ petition.