INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD Vs. INDIAN ADDITIVES EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). THIS writ appeal is preferred against the interim order dated October 5, 2004 passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein. By the impugned order, the learned single judge has modified the order of interim stay and directed the listing of the writ petition for final hearing. Aggrieved, the second respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is directed to be tagged along with the appeal for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side. It appears that the first respondent union has filed the writ petition against the appellant, alleging violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the I. D. Act) while altering the service conditions of its members. It is well-settled principle that when the dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the claimant is to get adjudication under that Act. In the present case, the grievance of the first respondent is that the provisions of Section 9-A of the I. D. Act were breached by the appellant. If that is so, the first respondent's remedy is by approaching the appropriate forum created under the I. D. Act, viz. Board or Labour Court or Industrial tribunal. Though there is a plethora of case laws on this point, we would rely only on two decisions of the Supreme Court.

(3.) IN Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation v. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 : 1995 (5) SCC 75 : 1995-II-LLJ-728, the supreme Court held as under at p. 741 of LLJ: