2021 INSC 0516
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5667 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2815 OF 2020)
UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT       .. APPELLANT 
(S)NIGAM LIMITED & ORS.      
VERSUS
BALBIR SINGH  .. RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and   order   dated   26.11.2019   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2014 (M/S)
by   which   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   writ   petition
preferred   by   the   appellants   herein   without   entering   into   the
merits of the case, the original writ petitioner has preferred the
present appeal. 
1

2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under:­
That   the   respondent   herein   raised   an   industrial   dispute
challenging his termination dated 15.06.1996. The dispute was
referred   to   the   labour   court.   The   Presiding   Officer,   Labour
Court,   Dehradun,   passed   an   award   dated   31.05.1997   holding
that the termination order is illegal. The Labour Court directed
the   reinstatement   of   the   respondent   with   full   back   wages.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in case No.180 of 1996,
the   original   petitioners   ­   appellants   herein   preferred   Writ
Petition   No.6898   of   1997   before   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad.
That the High Court of Allahabad passed a conditional interim
order   staying   the   execution   of   award   and   on   condition   to
deposit   the   entire   back   wages   before   the   Labour   Court.   The
appellant complied with the same and deposited the amount of
back   wages.   That   during   the   pendency   of   the   aforesaid   writ
petition,   the   State   of   Uttarakhand   came   to   be   created   and   the
jurisdiction   of   the   Labour   Court,   Dehradun   came   within   the
2

jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand. 
2.1 In that view of the matter and in view of Section 35 of the Uttar
Pradesh   Reorganization   Act,   2000,   the   proceedings   pending
before   the   High   Court   at   Allahabad   were   required   to   be
transferred to the High Court having jurisdiction, in the present
case   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand.   However,   writ   petition
No.6898 of 1997 was not transferred by the Chief Justice of the
High   Court   of   Allahabad   for   whatever   reason.   Therefore   when
writ   petition   No.6898   of   1997   though   was   required   to   be
transferred   to   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   as   what   was
challenged   before   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   was   the
judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,   Dehradun,
the   jurisdiction   of   which   subsequently   vested   with   the   High
Court   of   Uttarakhand,   came   up   for   hearing   before   the
Allahabad   High   Court   on   24.04.2014   and   the   Allahabad   High
Court was of the view that since the award has been passed by
the Labour Court, Dehradun and therefore the jurisdiction does
not   lie   with   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   and   therefore
permitted   the   appellants   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioner   to
3

withdraw   the   writ   petition   with   liberty   to   file   fresh   petition
before   the   appropriate   court   i.e.   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand.
That thereafter the appellants herein preferred the present writ
petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   which   was
numbered   as   writ   petition   No.1314   of   2014,   challenging   the
award   dated   31.05.1997   passed   by   the   Presiding   Officer,
Labour   Court,   Dehradun   in   case   No.180   of   1996.   That
thereafter the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge
of   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   on   26.11.2019.     By   the
impugned   order   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   writ
petition   without   entering   into   the   merits   of   the   case   solely   on
the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Sub­
Section   (2)   of   Section   35   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Reorganization
Act,   2000   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Act’),   the   power   to
transfer the case lie with the Chief Justice of the High Court of
Allahabad   and   therefore   the   Coordinate   Bench   of   Allahabad
High   Court   was   not   justified   in   granting   liberty   to   the
appellants herein – original writ petitioner to withdraw the writ
petition   with   liberty   to   file   fresh   writ   petition   before   the
4

appropriate   court.   The   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand   observed   that   the   liberty   granted   by   the   High
Court   of   Allahabad   permitting   the   appellants   to   withdraw   the
writ   petition   pending   before   it   with   liberty   to   file   fresh   writ
petition   before   the   appropriate   court   is   just   contrary   to   the
provisions contained under Sub­Section (2) of Section 35 of the
Act. 
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand,   the   original   writ
petitioners have preferred the present appeal.   
   
3. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respective
parties and considering the impugned order passed by the High
Court of Uttarakhand, we are of the opinion that the impugned
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing   the   writ   petition
without entering into the merits of the case is unsustainable.
3.1 It cannot be disputed that as such on the creation of the State
of   Uttarakhand,   the   jurisdiction   over   the   Labour   Court,
Dehradun would only vest with the High Court of Uttarakhand.
It   also   cannot   be   disputed   that   therefore   as   such   the   writ
petition pending before the High Court of Allahabad challenging
5

the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Presiding   Officer,
Labour   Court, Dehradun   was  required to  be transferred  to  the
High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   by   the   Chief   Justice   of   the   High
Court   of   Allahabad   in   exercise   of   power   under   Sub­Section   (2)
of Section 35 of the ‘Act’. 
Section   35   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Reorganization   Act   reads   as
under:­   
"35.   Transfer   of   proceedings   from   Allahabad   High   Court   to
Uttaranchal High Court:­ 
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Allahabad
shall, as from the appointed day, have no jurisdiction in respect
of the transferred territory. 
(2)   Such   proceedings   pending   in   the   High   Court   at   Allahabad
immediately before the appointed day as are certified, whether
before or after that day, by the Chief Justice of that High Court,
having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and
other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard
and decided by the High Court  of Uttarachal shall, as soon as
may be after such certification, be transferred to the High Court
of Uttaranchal.
(3)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   subsections   (1)   and
(2)   of   this   section   or   in   section   28,   but   save   as   hereinafter
provided, the High Court at Allahabad shall have, and the High
Court   of   Uttaranchal   shall   not   have,   jurisdiction   to   entertain,
hear   or   dispose   of   appeals,   applications   for   leave   to   the
Supreme   Court,   applications   for   review   and   other   proceedings
where   any   such   proceedings   seek   any   relief   in   respect   of   any
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   at   Allahabad   before   the
appointed   day:   Provided   that   if   after   any   such   proceedings
have   been   entertained   by   the   High   Court   at   Allahabad,   it
appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought
to   be   transferred   to   the   High   Court   of   Uttaranchal,   he   shall
order   that   they   shall   be   so   transferred,   and   such   proceedings
shall thereupon be transferred accordingly. 
(4) Any order made by the High Court at Allahabad. 
6

(a) before the appointed day, in any proceedings transferred to
the High Court of Uttaranchal by virtue of sub­section (2) or 
(b)  in any proceedings  with respect to  which the High Court  at
Allahabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub­section (3), shall
for   all   purposes   have   effect,   not   only   as   an   order   of   the   High
Court   at   Allahabad,   but   also   as   an   order   made   by   the   High
Court of Uttaranchal."
As   the   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   was
against   the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,
Dehradun,   Sub­Section   (3)   of   Section   of   the   Act   shall   not   be
applicable. Therefore, as such, the writ petition before the High
Court   of   Allahabad   was   required   to   be   transferred   to   the   High
Court   of   Uttarakhand.   However   for   whatever   reason   the   writ
petition   filed   by   the   appellants   before   the   High   Court   of
Allahabad   being   writ   petition   No.6898   (M/S)   of   1997   was   not
transferred. Therefore when the writ petition pending before the
High   Court   of   Allahabad   came   up   for   hearing   before   the
Allahabad High Court, the High Court permitted the appellants
to   withdraw   the   said   writ   petition   with   liberty   to   file   the   same
before   the   appropriate   court   i.e.   in   the   present   case   the   High
Court of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the appellants filed the writ
petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. However, after 5
years   of   filing   of   writ   petition,   by   impugned   order   dated
7

26.11.2019   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand  has   dismissed  the   said   writ  petition   by   observing
that the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court was not
justified   in   permitting   the   appellants   to   withdraw   the   writ
petition with liberty to file fresh petition before the appropriate
court.   The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand has observed that by permitting the appellants to
withdraw   writ   petition   pending   before   it   with   liberty   to   file   the
writ   petition   before   the   appropriate   court   –   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand,   the   Coordinate   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of
Allahabad has barged into to override the provisions contained
under   Sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   35   of   the   Act   by   adoring
himself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High
Court   as   contemplated   under   Sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   35   of
the   Act   for   transfer   of   pending   matters   before   the   Allahabad
High Court.  It is observed by the learned Single Judge that the
liberty   granted   by   Allahabad   High   Court   permitting   the
appellants   to   file   a   fresh   writ   petition   before   the   appropriate
court dated 24.04.2014, will not make the writ petition tenable
8

before   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   and   that   too   when   a
challenge   is   given   to   the   impugned   award   before   the
Uttarakhand   High   Court   after   19   years   of   its   pendency.   The
learned   Single   Judge   has   also   observed   that   even   the
institution   of   the   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand   challenging   the   award   passed   by   the   Labour
Court, Dehradun dated 31.05.1997 would be suffering from the
principles of laches.  
3.2 None  of   the   aforesaid   grounds   are   tenable  at   law.   It   cannot  be
disputed that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand the
jurisdiction   over   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour
Court,   Dehradun   would   vest   with   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand   and   not   with   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad.
Therefore,   the   writ   petition   pending   before   the   High   Court   of
Allahabad   challenging   the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the
Labour   Court,   Dehradun   was   as   such   required   to   be
transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad
to   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   in   exercise   of   power   under
Section 35 of the Act. For whatever reason the said writ petition
9

was not transferred. That does not mean that despite the above,
jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   against   the
judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,   Dehradun
would continue. Therefore subsequently  when  the writ  petition
came up before the High Court of Allahabad and having realized
and   observed   that   the   jurisdiction   against   the   judgment   and
award passed by  the Labour  Court, Dehradun would vest with
the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand,   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad
rightly   permitted   the   appellants   to   withdraw   the   said   writ
petition   pending   before   it   with   the   liberty   to   the   appellants   to
file   fresh   writ   petition   before   the   appropriate   court.   In   the
present case, the appropriate court would be the High Court of
Uttarakhand   only.   Therefore   as   such   no   error   was   committed
by   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   permitting   the   appellants   to
withdraw   the   writ   petition   pending   before   it   with   the   liberty   to
file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction. The
aforesaid cannot be said to be adoring himself with the powers
of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. The judicial order
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   permitting   the
10

appellants   to   withdraw   the   writ   petition   pending   before   the
Allahabad High Court with the liberty to file fresh writ petition
before   the   appropriate   court   cannot   be   said   to   be   contrary   to
the provisions contained under Sub­Section (2) of Section 35 of
the   Act   as   observed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   the
impugned order. The order under Sub­Section (2) of Section 35
of the Act by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for
transfer of pending matters before the Allahabad High Court to
the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   is   an   administrative   order.   If
that   power   was   not   exercised   and   subsequently   it   was   found
that   proceedings   which   were   required   to   be   transferred   in
exercise  of  power   Sub­Section  (2)  of  Section   35  of  the  Act,  has
not   been   transferred,   it   does   not   preclude   the   High   Court   of
Allahabad   to   pass   a   judicial   order   and   that   too   permitting   the
appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it and to
file   it   before   an   appropriate   court.   As   such   the   High   Court   in
such   a   situation   would   be   absolutely   justified   in   permitting   to
withdraw the writ petition pending before it with liberty to file it
11

before an appropriate court having jurisdiction, on the creation
of the new State – State of Uttarakhand.      
3.3 The another reason which is assigned by  the High Court while
passing   the   impugned   order   is   that   if   the   writ   petition   is   filed
before   it   –   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   challenging   the
judgment   and   award   of   the   Labour   Court,   Dehradun   dated
31.05.1997, it would be suffering from the principles of laches.
The   aforesaid   reason   is   absolutely   unsustainable.   The   High
Court has not appreciated that the writ petition before the High
Court was filed immediately which remained pending before the
High Court of Allahabad for about 14 years and thereafter after
the   appellants   withdrew   the   writ   petition   from   the   Allahabad
High   Court   immediately   the   writ   petition   was   filed   before   the
High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore there was no delay at all
on   the   part   of   the   appellants   in   challenging   the   award   passed
by the Labour Court, Dehradun.   Therefore in such a situation
there was no question of any delay and laches. 
4. Even   otherwise   once   a   judicial   order   was   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Allahabad   permitting   the   appellants   to   withdraw   the
12

writ   petition   with   liberty   to   file   a   writ   petition   before   the
appropriate   court   (the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand)   and
thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before
the High Court of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge of the
High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   is   not   at   all   justified   in   making
comments   upon   the   judicial   order   passed   by   the   Coordinate
Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court.   The   Single   Judge   of   the
High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court
against   the   judicial   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Allahabad   permitting   the   appellants   to   withdraw   the   writ
petition with liberty to file a writ petition before an appropriate
court. Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order
passed   by   the   Coordinate   Bench   and   more   particularly   the
judicial   order   passed   by   the   Coordinate   Bench   of   the   High
Court,  in   the   present   case   the   Allahabad   High  Court   which   as
such   was   not   under   challenge   before   it.   Therefore   the
observations   made   by   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   in   the
impugned   order   on   the   judicial   order   passed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   of   Allahabad   High   Court   dated   24.04.2014
13

permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending
before   it   with   liberty   to   file   fresh   writ   petition   before   the
appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) is absolutely
unwarranted and is unsustainable. 
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above   the
present   appeal   succeeds.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order
dated 26.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital   in   Writ   Petition   No.1314   of   2014   (M/S)   is   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside.   The   writ   petition   is   directed   to   be
restored   on   the   file   of   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand.
Considering the fact that the dispute is very old, we request the
High   Court   to   finally   decide   and   dispose   of   the   Writ   Petition
No.1314   of   2014   (M/S)   at   the   earliest   and   preferably   within   a
period   of   six   months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the   present
order. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
High Court of Uttarakhand forthwith.   No costs.   
…………………………………J.
                   (M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,    …………………………………J. 
September  13, 2021                             (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
14

15