TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made claims of 15% of the basic pay as an interim relief as was being paid to the officers and clerical staff at the Headquarters of the appellant's concern, as according to them there was no justifiable reason for refusing the said relief to the staff at some units. The writ petition was filed (including amended prayers), inter alia, with the following prayers: (a) to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from transferring, terminating the services of the petitioners and harassing and causing any harm to petitioners; (b) to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay 15% of the basic pay as interim relief and fixed D.A. of Rs. 100 to the clerical staff of the Maunath Bhanjan Unit Mills; (c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and (d) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners against the contesting respondents. It is to be noted that five applications for amendments were filed and some of them were allowed by the High Court. Right from the beginning, the appellant was questioning maintainability of the writ petition as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed on record. This right was being denied by the workmen approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The High Court did not consider the plea relating to the existence of alternative remedy and denial of opportunity to justify the order of termination by leading evidence to be of any consequence and held that the learned Single Judge had permitted the appellant-employer to proceed further in accordance with law. Since the order of termination was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in hasty manner the writ petition was maintainable. In support of the appeal, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. No reason was indicated by the writ petitioners for by-passing the statutory remedies. Even in the writ petition, nothing was said to justify by-passing the statutory remedy. In fact it was clearly stated that the standing orders governing the service conditions were in operation. The High Court should not have considered the passage of time as a factor to justify the action of the writ petitioners in straightway filing the wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 425; Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86 and M/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089, held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., AIR (1964) SC 1006 held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Krishnan and Ors., [2001] 6 SCC 569, this Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 1147 the appeal is from "Caeser to Caeser's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question again. When the High Court had entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to be palp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy..." The statutory system of appeals is more effective and more convenient than application for certiorari and the principal reason why it may prove itself more convenient and more effective is that an appeal to (say) the Secretary of State can be disposed of at one hearing whether the issue between them is a matter of law or fact or policy or opinion or a combination of some or all of these ........whereas of course an appeal for certiorari is limited to cases where the issue is a matter of law and then only it is a matter of law appearing on the face of the order." "An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used.....I would, however, define a proper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law." After all the above discussion, the following observations of Roskill L.J. in Hanson v. Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them". In Basant Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors., [1964] 6 SCR 913 the Constitution Bench of this Court observed as follows: "It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 are very wide, but it is not suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even these powers can take in within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which this contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would confirm the finding of the High Court that the proper remedy which is ....