1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R 1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5176/2005 (Om Prakash Vs. Union of India & Anr.) 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5180/2005 (Harish Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.) Date of Order : : 17/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: By these two writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to take the petitioners back in service and regularize their services and pay the regular pay scale. From the averments made in writ petitions, it appears that mainly the allegation of the petitioners is that their services have been retrenched. In my view, the remedy against the order of retrenchment, whether in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not, is before the Industrial 2 Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court in view of the Larger Bench decision of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1995 (1) Rajasthan Law Reporter, 1 wherein a five Judge Bench of this Court held that in normal course, an employee is to pursue remedy provided under the Act and power u/A 226 in such cases should be sparingly exercised by High Court. This Court observed as under :- “The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is a special statute has been enacted by the Parliament for settling the industrial disputes through conciliation and if not possible, then by the Tribunals constituted under the Act, and also to reduce the field of conflict between the employer and the employees in order to increase the industrial growth of the country. The Act is a self contained code and provides complete procedure, even machinery has been provided for recovering the money due from the employer to the employee under Section 33-C of the Act. In our opinion even where the question is raised as to whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with before passing the impugned order or not, is also a question of fact which requires investigation. Similarly, the question as to whether the order is without jurisdiction, is also essentially a question of fact and requires investigation before reaching a conclusion and that investigation or enquiry in our opinion is normally beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and these questions can be suitably agitated and adjudicated upon by the authorities constituted under the Act, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even in such cases the normal rule for an employee should be to avail remedies provided under the Act and entertainment of writ petition by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the remedies should be with great care and caution and in very exceptional cases.” 3 In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of non-exhausting of alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. However, it will be open for the petitioners to approach the State Government for making reference raising industrial dispute. Stay petitions also stand dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK