Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy: natural justice breach may justify intervention, but disciplinary process can still be completed.

Article explains that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily should not be used when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under the industrial dispute machinery. It notes recognised exceptions for breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of process, but states that even where termination is vitiated, the court may preserve the employer's disciplinary rights by directing reinstatement only for the limited purpose of completing the enquiry from the stage of the defect, without back wages or other service benefits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the industrial dispute machinery, and what relief should follow when the termination was found vitiated for violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and self-imposed restraint under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not an absolute bar. Ordinarily, the High Court should insist on exhaustion of statutory remedies, especially where the Industrial Disputes Act provides a complete forum and the employer is entitled to justify termination before the industrial forum. Yet the exception applies where there is breach of natural justice, where the impugned action is without jurisdiction, or where the proceedings amount to an abuse of process. On the facts, the termination order had been passed in haste and in violation of natural justice, but the High Court ought not to have bypassed the statutory mechanism in the manner adopted. At the same time, the employer's right to proceed with the disciplinary matter could be preserved by restoring the employee only for the limited purpose of completing the enquiry from the stage at which the defect occurred.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained on the facts, and the impugned orders were set aside. The employee was directed to be reinstated only for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, without back wages or other service benefits, and the enquiry was to be completed afresh from the relevant stage.

Ratio Decidendi: While writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily subordinate to the statutory remedy regime, a court may intervene for violation of natural justice, but the proper relief may still preserve the employer's right to complete the disciplinary process from the stage of the defect.

---