D.N. Patel
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly for getting wages for the period running from 02.02.2007 to 13.08.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially there were some litigations going on between the parties and therefore, the petitioner was
transferred from one colliery to another. There was also some dispute regarding designation of the petitioner. However, ultimately the disputes
were settled, but the salary were not paid for the said period and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. Counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner u/s 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the petition may
not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is claiming
wages for the period running from 02.02.2007 to 13.08.2008. There was some earlier dispute with regard to designation of the petitioner which
has been be resolved. Now the only question left out about payment of salary/wages, for which the petitioner has already an efficacious remedy
available u/s 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of these facts, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, as because there
is other efficacious remedy available to the petitioner u/s 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.