IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6239 of 1992 Date of decision:09.07.2009 Ram Phal and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1 Mr. L.N.Verma and Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocates, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners were represented through a counsel who has later become a Judge of this Court. This Court has issued notices to the petitioners but they not been served on several dates. From 2006, there was no representation for the petitioners. On 04.04.2008, notices for actual date had been issued to the petitioners for 16th July, 2008. Again notices were sent and it was reported that notices had not been received back served or otherwise. Since the case is of the year 1992 and the issue involved in this case is the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of persons claiming to be workmen, who challenged the order of alleged illegal termination, I propose to deal with the case, although the petitioners are not present, with the assistance of respective counsel appearing for the respondents. Civil Writ Petition No.6239 of 1992 - 2 - 2. The petitioners' contention was that they all had been employed by the Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited for catering services at the bus stand, Hisar, and the catering services were taken back by the Government and the services of the workmen employed by the Tourism Corporation had been terminated. Such termination according to the petitioners, was not valid as they have completed 240 days of service and the termination was against the express provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Written statement had been filed on behalf of the respondents where it was denied that the petitioners had completed 240 days of service and also stated that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, since they had adequate remedy before the Labour Court. The writ petition involves disputed questions of fact relating to number of days of engagement and the status as workman. It will not be possible for this Court to enter an adjudication on the validity or otherwise of the alleged termination without inviting the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence of the respective contentions. It is common knowledge that the Industrial Disputes Act contained elaborate provisions relating to the status of workman, regularization relating to conditions of service and the redressal mechanism for the disputes raised by the workmen that includes provisions for payment of compensation, direction for reinstatement and adjudication regarding illegality or otherwise of orders of termination. The points urged in the writ petition would squarely come within the scope of enquiry of an industrial dispute and since the petitioners will have adequate alternative remedy before Civil Writ Petition No.6239 of 1992 - 3 - the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, it will be impermissible for the petitioners to obtain any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refers me to the decision of Full Bench in Manohar Lal Versus State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD (P.H.), Punjab, Chandigarh and another-1983 PLR 666, that held that mode of redressal provided to workman by claiming reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, will be the appropriate efficacious remedy and the Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having regard to the clear statement of the law on the subject, the petitioners shall have no remedy before this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.07.2009 sanjeev