Writ jurisdiction and statutory absorption rules bar blanket employee absorption or compensation without an enforceable legal right.

A writ petition seeking absorption of employees and related reliefs was held inappropriate where the dispute involved proposed retrenchment, alleged closure, non-payment of wages, and other contested facts better suited to labour adjudication. The availability of remedies before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, together with the statutory wage and retrenchment framework, meant writ jurisdiction should not have been invoked. The Court also held that mandamus could not direct absorption or compensation without a subsisting legal right and corresponding statutory duty; statutory absorption rules controlled the issue, and there can be no estoppel against a statute. The High Court's directions were set aside, and the employees were left to pursue appropriate remedies under the applicable law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition seeking absorption of employees and allied reliefs was maintainable in view of the availability of alternative industrial remedies and disputed questions of fact; (ii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing absorption of employees and payment of compensation in the absence of a legally enforceable right and in the face of statutory absorption rules.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition seeking absorption of employees and allied reliefs was maintainable in view of the availability of alternative industrial remedies and disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The reliefs claimed arose from the Corporation's proposed retrenchment, alleged closure, and non-payment of wages, all of which involved factual controversy and matters ordinarily examinable under industrial law. The existence of remedies before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, and under the statutory wage and retrenchment framework, made the writ route inappropriate for resolving the dispute. The fact that the writ petition had earlier been entertained and interim orders had been passed did not create an absolute bar against dismissal on the ground of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the challenge was not maintainable as a matter for industrial adjudication.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing absorption of employees and payment of compensation in the absence of a legally enforceable right and in the face of statutory absorption rules.

Analysis: Mandamus requires a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty. The Court held that absorption of retrenched employees could arise only in accordance with the statutory rules framed by the State, and not on the basis of assurances or statements said to have been made before the Court. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and a public authority cannot be compelled by mandamus to act contrary to governing rules. The direction to pay compensation was also unsupported by any specific statutory foundation or finding establishing entitlement to such compensation.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could validly be issued directing blanket absorption or compensation, and the High Court's directions on these matters were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition stood dismissed, while leaving the employees free to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum under the applicable law.

---