AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—The above two writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 6.3.2003
in W.P. Nos.16527 to 16536, 16537 to 16546, 16565 to 16574 and 16575 to 16584 of 2000. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petitioners challenged their termination of service on the ground of violation of sections 25F, 25G and 25N of the Industrial Disputes
Act directly by filing writ petitions in the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and by the Supreme Court that such writ petitions
should not be entertained. If any one alleges violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, his remedy is to raise an industrial
dispute u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and not to directly file a writ petition in this Court. This kind of practice of directly approaching the
High Court in such matters cannot be approved or encouraged.
In Madura Sugars Staff Union and Ors. v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 W.L.R. 25 this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.
State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, has taken a similar view. This Court in Indian
Additives Limited v. Indian Additives Employees Union, 2005 W.L.R. 22 has also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and Others, where the Supreme Court observed:-
Where, however, the dispute involved recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes
Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act.
Despite the clear decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court a practice has developed in many High Courts in the country of directly filing
writ petitions in the High Court alleging violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This practice cannot be approved or encouraged
otherwise there will be a flood of such litigations in the High Courts. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the parties must ordinarily
avail of it and not rush directly to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the aforesaid decisions both the writ
appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. It is open to the writ petitioners to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act, and if they do so the same will be decided expeditiously. Consequently WAMP Nos.717 and 718 of 2005 are closed.