Annavarapu Narayana and others vs Dist. Manager, Food Corporation of India, Khammama and others

R. Ramanujam, J.—The unsuccessful writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.8584 of 1998 are the appellants herein. They are 13 in number. They claim that they are working as casual labourers in the service of the Food Corporation of India through a contractor. Stating that their services were illegally discontinued by the 1st respondent-District Manager, Food Corporation of India, they filed the said writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in discontinuing them as illegal and directing him to continue them as casual labour.

A learned single Judge of this Court, having held that the order of the 1st respondent does not suffer from any illegality, dismissed that writ petition at the admission stage. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge gave liberty to the appellants herein "to avail such remedy as may be available to them in law and in such an event, the matter is required to be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the writ petition".

This Writ Appeal is filed against the above order of the learned single Judge.

Mr. D. Govardhanachary, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that: (1) the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition; and (2) the impugned action of the 1 st respondent in discontinuing their services while retaining the persons with lesser number of man days to their credit is discriminatory and unsustainable.

We are not impressed by either of these contentions.

The questions that arise for consideration, on the appellants own averments, are :

(1) Whether they are workmen?

(2) If so, their disengagement by the 1st respondent while retaining the workmen with lesser number of working days to their credit is illegal? And

(3) Whether the 1st respondent can be compelled to continue them in service?

These questions also involve adjudication of disputed facts and the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the proper forum to decide these questions. It is open to the appellants to move the concerned Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to obtain the relief now sought for. Thus, the appellants have an effective alternative remedy.

It Is now well settled that where it is open to the aggrieved person to move a Tribunal for obtaining redressal in the manner provided for in a statute, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, permitting the machinery created by the statute to be bypassed. See: (I) the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. and Others Vs. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy and Others, and (2) the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Muthineni Krishna Rao and others Vs. Union of India and Others, .

Applying the aforesaid principle, the Apex Court in Scooters India and Others Vs. Vijai E.V. Eldred, recently held that a writ petition questioning the termination of an industrial worker is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid clear legal position, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be found fault with.

The writ appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.