Statutory remedy for industrial disputes must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 operates as a self-contained code with a complete adjudicatory mechanism for industrial disputes, including reference, adjudication and ancillary relief. Questions on compliance with Section 25F, breach of natural justice, or jurisdictional objections ordinarily require factual examination and should be decided by the statutory authorities under the Act. The availability of delay in reference or lack of legal representation does not make the statutory remedy inadequate. Article 226 writ jurisdiction remains available only sparingly and in exceptional cases, so direct entertainment of a writ petition for alleged violation of Chapter V-A is not the normal course.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be directly entertained for alleged violation of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or breach of natural justice despite the statutory remedies under the Act.

Analysis: The reference examined the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and treated it as a self-contained code providing a complete machinery for adjudication of industrial disputes, including reference under Section 10, adjudicatory powers under Section 11A, and ancillary reliefs under Section 33C. It was held that whether the requirements of Section 25F have been complied with, and even whether natural justice or jurisdictional objections are made out, ordinarily involve questions needing factual investigation and are best adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. The possibility of delay in reference or absence of legal representation was held not to make the statutory remedy illusory or inadequate. Writ jurisdiction remains available, but only sparingly and in exceptional cases, not as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The answer to the referred question is in the negative. A writ petition challenging violation of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or alleged breach of natural justice should normally be pursued through the remedies under the Act, and direct entertainment under Article 226 is not the rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides an adequate adjudicatory mechanism for industrial disputes, the High Court should ordinarily insist on exhaustion of that statutory remedy, and Article 226 should be exercised only sparingly in exceptional cases.

---