https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298733 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate for an industrial retrenchment dispute where the Industrial Disputes Act provided an efficacious statutory remedy and no exceptional circumstance was shown. The Court emphasised that contested questions requiring evidence should be left to the industrial adjudicatory forum, and the petitioners were relegated to remedies under the Act. It also found no disclosed authority from the retrenched employees authorising the petitions at filing, and held that the later writ was defective for non-disclosure of an earlier petition seeking identical relief. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Nov 2021 06:46:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298733 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate for an industrial retrenchment dispute where the Industrial Disputes Act provided an efficacious statutory remedy and no exceptional circumstance was shown. The Court emphasised that contested questions requiring evidence should be left to the industrial adjudicatory forum, and the petitioners were relegated to remedies under the Act. It also found no disclosed authority from the retrenched employees authorising the petitions at filing, and held that the later writ was defective for non-disclosure of an earlier petition seeking identical relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298733