1995 (3) TMI 491 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alternative remedy.
2. Violation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Adequacy and efficacy of remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions without exhausting alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alternative remedy:
The primary issue referred for determination was whether a writ petition for violation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or violation of the principles of natural justice should be directly entertained as a matter of course, ignoring the statutory remedy provided by that Act. The court held that the answer to this question is negative. The court emphasized that the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act should normally be pursued first, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised with great care and caution.

2. Violation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The court examined the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes Sections 25A to 25J, dealing with various aspects of retrenchment, compensation, and re-employment of workmen. The court noted that whether the conditions prescribed under Section 25F of the Act for retrenchment of a workman have been fulfilled or not is a pure question of fact, which requires investigation or enquiry beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Violation of the principles of natural justice:
The court observed that even in cases where the principles of natural justice are alleged to have been violated, the normal rule should be to avail remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court stated that the question of whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with before passing the impugned order is also a question of fact requiring investigation, which is normally beyond the scope of Article 226.

4. Adequacy and efficacy of remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act:
The court discussed the adequacy and efficacy of the remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Sections 10 and 11A, which provide for the reference of disputes to Labour Courts, Tribunals, or National Tribunals. The court emphasized that the Act is a self-contained code providing complete machinery and procedure for resolving industrial disputes. The court rejected the argument that the remedy under the Act is not adequate or efficacious, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Santa Ram.

5. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions without exhausting alternative remedies:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income-Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., Union of India v. T.R. Verma, State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh, and Basant Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors., which consistently held that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should generally not entertain a writ petition under Article 226. The court concluded that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Smt. Indu's case and the Division Bench in Rajasthan Pul Nigam's case does not lay down the correct law and overruled these decisions. The court held that for violations of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act or principles of natural justice, the normal course is to pursue the remedy provided under the Act, and the power under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised.

Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the negative, stating that writ petitions should not be directly entertained as a matter of course for violations of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act or principles of natural justice without exhausting the statutory remedies provided by the Act. The court overruled the decisions in Smt. Indu's case and Rajasthan Pul Nigam's case and emphasized that the normal course is to pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, with the High Court's writ jurisdiction being exercised only in exceptional cases.