1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.930 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 The Organizing Secretary, All India Food and Allied Workers Union, 23/2, Avadhanapappaier Street, Choolai 2nd Lane, Chennai-600 112. : Petitioner vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, No.42, Thambuchamy Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. 2.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from appointing any new workers for loading and unloading in any of the godowns of the first respondent Corporation in the district of Kanyakumari. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent No.3 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner is a Trade Union represented by its Organizing Secretary. In this Writ Petition, they have chosen to seek for a direction to the first and second respondents, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director as well as the Regional Manager, not to appoint any new workers for loading and unloading in any of the Godowns situated in the district of Kanyakumari. 2. When the matter came up on 25.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered and an order of interim injunction was granted for a limited period and it was extended from time to time. Aggrieved by the grant of injunction, the third respondent has filed an application for vacating the interim injunction in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 together with the supporting counter-affidavit dated 22.08.2011. Apart from that, the first and second respondents have also filed their counter-affidavit dated 07.02.2011. 3. The contention raised by the respondents was two fold. The first is that the petitioner-union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Secondly, it was stated that there are four Godowns in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 district of Kanyakumari and in each Godown, they have loading and unloading workers, who were given different description, viz., green cardholders, pink cardholders and cardless loadmen and according to them, they are not disturbing the present loadmen and it was also stated that they have only published the instructions to the Regional Managers with reference to the engagement of loadmen and the recruitment initiated by the authority cannot be forestalled by the petitioner-Union. It was also further submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court earlier dismissed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.6099 of 2008, dated 16.07.2008. In any event, if the engagement of the loading and unloading workers is by the Civil Supplies Corporation directly, then nothing prevented the petitioner-union from approaching the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, for claiming the relief of regularization of the existing workmen and without doing so, the petitioner-union, by filing a Writ Petition, cannot forestall the Corporation from proceeding to organize its own business. 4. The Supreme Court, vide its judgment in Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust reported in 2011(2) SCC 575, held that bypassing a statutory remedy cannot be permitted. When an industrial dispute could be raised, which is an effective alternative remedy, the Court cannot take a liberal approach and issue Writ Petition in the nature of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph No.14 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: "14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles." 5. In the light of the above observation made by the Supreme Court, since the petitioner-union is having an alternative remedy by way of Industrial Disputes Act, this Court refrains from dealing with the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner-Union. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.42, Thambuchamy Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. 2.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.35843 +1. C.C to MR.R.Vijayakumar,Advocate, SR.No.35893 SML GH : 03.11.2011 : 3p/6c Order made in W.P.(MD)No.930 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/