J U D G M E N T

1 REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME court OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5667 OF 2021(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2815 OF 2020)UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT .. APPELLANT (S)NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. VERSUSBALBIR SINGH .. RESPONDENT (S)J U D G M E N TM. R. Shah, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated passed by the high court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition of 2014 (M/S)by which the high court has dismissed the said writ petitionpreferred by the appellants herein without entering into themerits of the case, the original writ petitioner has preferred thepresent appeal. facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are asunder: That the respondent herein raised an industrial disputechallenging his termination dated The dispute wasreferred to the labour court .

2 The Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Dehradun, passed an award dated holdingthat the termination order is illegal. The Labour court directedthe reinstatement of the respondent with full back aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and awardpassed by the Labour court , Dehradun in case of 1996,the original petitioners appellants herein preferred WritPetition of 1997 before the high court of the high court of Allahabad passed a conditional interimorder staying the execution of award and on condition todeposit the entire back wages before the Labour court . Theappellant complied with the same and deposited the amount ofback wages. That during the pendency of the aforesaid writpetition, the State of uttarakhand came to be created and thejurisdiction of the Labour court , Dehradun came within the2jurisdiction of the State of uttarakhand .

3 That view of the matter and in view of Section 35 of the UttarPradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the proceedings pendingbefore the high court at Allahabad were required to betransferred to the high court having jurisdiction, in the presentcase the high court of uttarakhand . However, writ of 1997 was not transferred by the Chief Justice of theHigh court of Allahabad for whatever reason. Therefore whenwrit petition of 1997 though was required to betransferred to the high court of uttarakhand as what waschallenged before the high court of Allahabad was thejudgment and award passed by the Labour court , Dehradun,the jurisdiction of which subsequently vested with the HighCourt of uttarakhand , came up for hearing before theAllahabad high court on and the Allahabad HighCourt was of the view that since the award has been passed bythe Labour court .

4 Dehradun and therefore the jurisdiction doesnot lie with the high court of Allahabad and thereforepermitted the appellants herein original writ petitioner to3withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petitionbefore the appropriate court high court of thereafter the appellants herein preferred the present writpetition before the high court of uttarakhand which wasnumbered as writ petition of 2014, challenging theaward dated passed by the Presiding Officer,Labour court , Dehradun in case of 1996. Thatthereafter the matter was listed before the learned Single Judgeof the high court of uttarakhand on By theimpugned order the high court has dismissed the said writpetition without entering into the merits of the case solely onthe ground that in view of the provisions contained under Sub Section (2) of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh ReorganizationAct, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act )

5 , the power totransfer the case lie with the Chief Justice of the high court ofAllahabad and therefore the Coordinate Bench of AllahabadHigh court was not justified in granting liberty to theappellants herein original writ petitioner to withdraw the writpetition with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the4appropriate court . The Single Judge of the high court ofUttarakhand observed that the liberty granted by the HighCourt of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw thewrit petition pending before it with liberty to file fresh writpetition before the appropriate court is just contrary to theprovisions contained under Sub Section (2) of Section 35 of theAct. aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orderpassed by the high court of uttarakhand , the original writpetitioners have preferred the present appeal.

6 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties and considering the impugned order passed by the HighCourt of uttarakhand , we are of the opinion that the impugnedorder passed by the high court dismissing the writ petitionwithout entering into the merits of the case is cannot be disputed that as such on the creation of the Stateof uttarakhand , the jurisdiction over the Labour court ,Dehradun would only vest with the high court of also cannot be disputed that therefore as such the writpetition pending before the high court of Allahabad challenging5the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer,Labour court , Dehradun was required to be transferred to theHigh court of uttarakhand by the Chief Justice of the HighCourt of Allahabad in exercise of power under Sub Section (2)of Section 35 of the Act.

7 Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act reads asunder: "35. Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad high court toUttaranchal high court : (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the high court at Allahabadshall, as from the appointed day, have no jurisdiction in respectof the transferred territory. (2) Such proceedings pending in the high court at Allahabadimmediately before the appointed day as are certified, whetherbefore or after that day, by the Chief Justice of that high court ,having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action andother circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heardand decided by the high court of Uttarachal shall, as soon asmay be after such certification, be transferred to the high Courtof Uttaranchal.(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and(2) of this section or in section 28, but save as hereinafterprovided, the high court at Allahabad shall have, and the HighCourt of Uttaranchal shall not have, jurisdiction to entertain,hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to theSupreme court , applications for review and other proceedingswhere any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of anyorder passed by the high court at Allahabad before theappointed day.

8 Provided that if after any such proceedingshave been entertained by the high court at Allahabad, itappears to the Chief Justice of that high court that they oughtto be transferred to the high court of Uttaranchal, he shallorder that they shall be so transferred, and such proceedingsshall thereupon be transferred accordingly. (4) Any order made by the high court at Allahabad. 6(a) before the appointed day, in any proceedings transferred tothe high court of Uttaranchal by virtue of sub section (2) or (b) in any proceedings with respect to which the high court atAllahabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub section (3), shallfor all purposes have effect, not only as an order of the HighCourt at Allahabad, but also as an order made by the HighCourt of Uttaranchal.

9 "As the writ petition before the high court of Allahabad wasagainst the judgment and award passed by the Labour court ,Dehradun, Sub Section (3) of Section 35 of the Act shall not beapplicable. Therefore, as such, the writ petition before the HighCourt of Allahabad was required to be transferred to the HighCourt of uttarakhand . However for whatever reason the writpetition filed by the appellants before the high court ofAllahabad being writ petition (M/S) of 1997 was nottransferred. Therefore when the writ petition pending before theHigh court of Allahabad came up for hearing before theAllahabad high court , the high court permitted the appellantsto withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file the samebefore the appropriate court in the present case the HighCourt of uttarakhand .

10 Accordingly, the appellants filed the writpetition before the high court of uttarakhand . However, after 5years of filing of writ petition, by impugned order the learned Single Judge of the high court ofUttarakhand has dismissed the said writ petition by observingthat the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad high court was notjustified in permitting the appellants to withdraw the writpetition with liberty to file fresh petition before the appropriatecourt. The learned Single Judge of the high court ofUttarakhand has observed that by permitting the appellants towithdraw writ petition pending before it with liberty to file thewrit petition before the appropriate court high court ofUttarakhand, the Coordinate Bench of the high court ofAllahabad has barged into to override the provisions containedunder Sub Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act by adoringhimself with the powers of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HighCourt as contemplated under Sub Section (2) of Section 35 ofthe Act for transfer of pending matters before the AllahabadHigh court .