AMBA DUTT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is on behalf of 78 workmen by the employees of the U.P. State Brass Ware Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' only), Moradabad. The Petitioners by this joint writ petition have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the termination notices dated 17 -11 -1990 and 18 -11 -1990, respectively. They have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioners on their respective posts and to pay regular monthly salary. Further Prayer is that the Respondents may be restrained not to effect sale of non -ferrous rolling mill (hereinafter referred to as the 'mill' only). The Petitioners have also prayed for a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the Respondents to run the mill in the public sector or in the alternative to permit the workers and employees to run the same through the workers' cooperative.

(2.) THE Petitioners have annexed the copies of the notices served to them under Section 6 -N(a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and to certain workmen notices dated 18 -11 -1990 under the provisions of the Rule 23(2) of the Service Rules of the Corporation terminating the services after 3 months since the mill run by the Corporation has ceased to function and the services of the workmen were no more required.

(3.) A preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect to a dispute concerning the Industrial Disputes whether could be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been squarely answered in the Full Bench decision of this Court Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd., Lucknow, (1991) 2 UP LB EC 898, which makes it clear that the Court must not entertain under Article 226 a writ petition where an adequate, speedy and efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioners. Merely saying that such a relief is not available to the Petitioner in the petition would not remove the bar of alternative remedy for entertaining the writ petition before this Court, and the aforesaid Full Bench case clearly rules that the Petitioners have in fact to prove that such a remedy does not really exist. This question have been repeatedly considered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court and the other High Courts and all the courts have ruled that a writ petition should be entertained only when there is no alternate adequate, speedy and efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner.