BINDESHWAR SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this set of two connected writ petitions it becomes unnecessary to delve into details for reasons given hereinafter. The facts being closely similar, if not identical, may be noticed with brevity from C.W.J.C. No. 1515 of 1982.

(2.) The fortyfour petitioners herein were employed as casual labourers in the project of the conversion of the meter gauge line into broad gauge line from Sanepur to Barabanki in the Varanasi Division of the North Eastern Railway. They claim to have been continuously so employed from different dates in the year 1980 Their services were terminated with effect from the 15th of April, 1982 by the impugned order of the Executive Engineer dated the 15th of March, 1982 (vide annexure -1). Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been preferred on the 14th April, 1982, primarily invoking the contravention of Sec. 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Later, the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union had prayed to be added as one of the petitioners to the writ application which was allowed by the order of this Court on the 14th of February, 1985.

(3.) These two petitions had originally come up for hearing before a Division Bench. In the wake of the Full Bench judgment in Dinesh Prasad Mandal and Ors. v State of Bihar and Ors. C.W.J.C. 5377 of 1983 decided on the 16th November 1984 a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act provide an adequate and efficacious legal remedy for the enforcement of rights created thereunder and the petitioners should first exhaust the remedies under the said Act before seeking relief in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, two significant questions namely, whether the bar of an alternative statutory remedy would be attracted in the case of writ petitions which have already been admitted to hearing and as to the precise stage when a suitor can be said to have exhausted his statutory remedy under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. were referred for consideration by a larger Bench on the 28th of November, 1984.