ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ETC. versus NITHU & ORS. ETC.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1235, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1235 : 2024 INSC 230
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. 
v. 
Nithu & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeals No. 1455 - 1459 of 2024) 
With 
(Civil Appeals No. 1460 - 1461 of 2024) 
With 
(Civil Appeal No. 1462 of 2024)
31 January 2024 
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant, a Cooperative Society, had issued a notification 
dated 29.01.2011 inviting applications for regular recruitment to, 
inter alia, the post of Plant Attender, Grade-III. The Respondents 
challenged the notification before the High Court of Kerala and 
prayed, inter alia, for their regularization on the post of Plant 
Attenders. The Respondents, admittedly, did not avail the remedy 
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) but directly invoked 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed a writ petition 
before the High Court. The appellant-Society had pleaded, before 
the High Court, inter alia, that the nominees did not have any 
right of permanent employment, and even otherwise, none of the 
Respondents had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year 
which disentitled them from any claim of permanent employment. 
However, the appellant was directed by the High Court to prepare 
a list of casual labourers from amongst the Respondents and 
consider their claims for regularization ; Whether the High Court 
was justified in directing the appellant to consider the Respondents’ 
claims for regularisation.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
– Appeal against common judgment of the High Court of 
Kerala dated 09.01.2018 – Appellant was directed to prepare 
a list of casual labourers from amongst the Respondent 
and consider their claims for regularization in terms of 
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 –
1236
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Respondents’ claimed before the High Court that they were 
working as casual labourers on contract basis with the 
appellant-Society for several years; engaged continuously 
for a period of 60 days and then on rotational basis; all of 
them were in continuous service for a period of over 240 
days in a period of 12 calendar months; and ought to be 
treated as permanent workers under the provisions of ID Act; 
and that Appellant-Society is an organization covered under 
the provisions of the ID Act – Remedy under the ID Act not 
invoked by the Respondents – During pendency of conciliation 
proceedings before the District Labour, instead of seeking 
remedies under the ID Act, Respondents continued to press 
the writ petition filed by them – Respondents admittedly did 
not invoke the provisions of the ID Act after the conciliation 
proceedings had failed  – Did not seek a reference of the 
dispute to the Competent authority – Submissions of the 
Appellant that Respondents were engaged purely on a casual 
basis; nominated from amongst the members of the Apex 
Cooperative Society and that Terms and conditions of the 
Circulars made it clear that the nominees would not have any 
right of permanent employment and further that none of the 
Respondents had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year 
and therefore not entitled to claim permanent employment.
Held: 1. All questions fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact 
–
Would have required evidence to be lead and proper adjudication 
before an appropriate authority which would have been a remedy 
under the ID Act- Disputed questions of facts go to the very root of 
the matter – Judgment dated 09th January, 2018 which is quashed 
and set aside – Liberty granted to the Respondents to seek their 
remedies under the ID Act – Respondents continuing in service 
under the appellant-Society shall not be disturbed for a period 
of six months to enable them to seek appropriate legal recourse 
under the ID Act. [Paras 12, 21-24]
2. Powers of judicial review can always be exercised by a writ 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but wherever 
there are disputed questions of facts that need adjudication, it 
is best left to the competent forum to adjudicate the same by 
examining the evidence brought on record before any findings can 
be returned- Writ is a discretionary remedy; High Court to refuse 
grant of any writ if the aggrieved party can have an adequate or
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1237
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
suitable remedy elsewhere unless the party makes out a strong 
case that there exist convincing grounds to invoke its extraordinary 
jurisdiction- When there is a hierarchy of appeals provided under 
the statute, a party ought to exhaust the statutory remedies before 
resorting to approaching a writ court. [Paras 15, 17, 18]
Case Law Cited
Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra 
Pradesh and Others [1961] 2 SCR 931 : AIR 1961 SC 
564; Yogender Pal Singh and Others v. Union of India 
and Others [1987] 2 SCR 49 : (1987) 1 SCC 631; G. 
Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. and Others 
[1952] 1 SCR 583 : (1952) 1 SCC 334 : AIR 1952 SC 
192; C.A. Abraham v. ITO and Another [1961] 2 SCR 
765 : AIR 1961 SC 609; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. 
and Another v. State of Orissa and Others [1983] 2 
SCR 743 : (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131 : 
AIR 1983 SC 603; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar 
of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others [1998] Supp. 2 
SCR 359 : (1998) 8 SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 22; Punjab 
National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 
466 : (2001) 6 SCC 569; Radha Krishan Industries v. 
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2021] 3 SCR 
406 : (2021) 6 SCC 771 – relied on.
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR 
953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1; K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income 
Tax Investigation Commission and Another [1954] 1 
SCR 738 : AIR 1954 SC 207; Sangram
Singh v. Election 
Tribunal [1955] 2 SCR 1 : AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of 
India v. T.R. Varma [1958] 1 SCR 499 : AIR 1957 SC 
882; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [1958] 1 SCR 595 : 
AIR 1958 SC 86; K.S.Venkatraman and Co. (P) Ltd. 
v. State of Madras [1966] 2 SCR 229 : AIR 1966 SC 
1089; U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & 
Another [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 603 : (2005) 8 SCC 264; 
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others 
(2003) 2 SCC 107 – referred to.
List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1238
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Judicial Review; Writ; Discretionary Remedy; Alternative Remedy; 
Extraordinary Jurisdiction; Statutory Remedies.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.1455-1459 of 
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2018 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos.2484, 2532, 2569, 2613 and 2614 
of 2017
With
Civil Appeal Nos.1460-1461 And 1462 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., E. M. S. Anam, Advs. for the Appellants.
Kaleeswaram Raj, Ms. Thulasi K. Raj, Ms. Aparna Menon, Suvidutt 
M. S., C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K. Poulose, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant, a Cooperative Society has filed the present appeals 
being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 09th January, 2018 
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in writ appeals1 
preferred by it against the common judgment dated 11th August, 
20172 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. By the 
said judgment, the learned Single Judge has directed the Managing 
Director of the appellant-Society to prepare a list of casual labourers 
from amongst the writ petitioners as on the date of the judgement and 
forward it to the Director, Dairy Development Department to consider 
their claims for regularization in terms of the judgement of this Court 
in the case of State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi 3.
1
Writ Appeals No.2484, 2532, 2564, 2569, 2578, 2612, 2613, 2614/2017
2	
Writ Petitions No.12126, 12353, 12354, 13469, 13998, 15931, 20085, 20848/2011
3	
[2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1239
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
4.	
The appellant-Society took a specific plea, both in the writ petitions 
as also before the Appellate Court that it is Cooperative Society and 
not a State or any other authority, as contemplated under Article 12 
of the Constitution of India and therefore, is not amenable to judicial 
review. On merits, it was submitted that the judgment in Umadevi 
(supra) cannot have any application to the facts of the instant case 
for the reason that the respondents-writ petitioners were not irregular 
appointees but appointed illegally and therefore, not entitled for 
regularization.
5.	
We may note that the respondents-writ petitioners were appointed 
temporarily on a daily wage basis in terms of the Circulars dated 
15th December, 1992 and 10th December, 2010 which stated in clear 
terms that their appointments were made on a temporary basis and 
on daily wages on the recommendations by the members of the 
Society.  Some of the relevant stipulations in the Circular dated 15th 
December, 1992 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: 
“(1)	 Only persons who are members of the member-
Societies and their dependants will be considered;
(2)	 Only one person from one member-Society will be 
included in the list;
(3)	 Preference will be given to members of the member-
Societies first and only thereafter dependants will be 
considered;
Xxxxxx
(10)	 Those who are engaged in this
manner will not be 
given any preference for permanent job.”
6.	
The Circular dated 10th December, 2010 has elaborated in para 1 that :
“1. Only persons who are members of the  member- 
Societies and their dependants will be considered 
(Dependants means children of member of Society, wife/
husband).”
7.	
On 29th January, 2011, the appellant-Society issued a Notification 
inviting applications for regular recruitment to several posts including 
the post of Plant Attender, Grade-III.  It is not in dispute that the 
nature of work being undertaken by the respondents was that of
1240
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Plant Attenders which is the lowest post in that category. Aggrieved 
by the aforesaid notification, the respondents filed a writ petition in 
the High Court praying inter alia for quashing of the notification and 
for issuing directions to the appellant-Society to regularize them on 
the post of Plant Attenders in their establishment and further, not 
to alter the conditions of their service pending the conciliation of 
disputes raised by them.
8.	
We have specifically inquired from Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned 
counsel for the respondents as to whether the respondents had 
subsequently invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
19474 after the conciliation proceedings had failed and sought a 
reference of their dispute to the Competent authority.  He submits that 
in view of the exigencies of the situation, where the appellant-Society 
had issued a notification inviting applications for appointments to the 
subject posts, the respondents were left with no other alternative 
but to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and file a writ 
petition before the High Court.
9.	
A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition filed by the 
respondents shows that they claimed that they were working as 
casual labourers on contract basis with the appellant-Society herein 
for the past several years and they claimed that they were engaged 
continuously for a period of 60 days and thereafter, engaged for
short intervals for the same work on rotational basis.
10.	 At the same time, in ground (A) taken by the respondents in the writ 
petition they have averred that all of them were in continuous service 
for a period of over 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months 
and therefore, ought to be treated as permanent workers under the 
provisions of ID Act. It has also been asserted that the appellant-
Society herein is an organization covered under the provisions of 
the ID Act.  Despite that, the respondent did not raise a dispute for 
it to be referred for adjudication by the State Government. Instead, 
while the conciliation proceedings were still pending before the District 
Labour Officer, who has been impleaded as respondent No.11 herein 
and the same did not bear any positive result instead of seeking 
their remedies under the ID Act, the respondents continued to press 
the writ petition filed by them.
4	
For short ‘the ID Act’
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1241
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
11.	 Despite a specific plea taken by the appellant-Society in its counter 
affidavit filed in response to the writ petition, as pointed out by Mr. C.U. 
Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Society, 
that the writ petitioners were engaged purely on a casual basis and 
that they were nominated from amongst the members of the Apex 
Cooperative Society (APCOS) and the terms and conditions of the 
Circulars issued by the appellant-Society had made it abundantly 
clear that the nominees would not have any right of permanent 
employment, such a plea did not find favour with the High Court. 
Further, the appellant-Society had specifically averred in its counter 
affidavit that as none of the writ petitioners had worked for over 200 
days in a calendar year, even otherwise, they were not entitled to 
claim permanent employment.
12.	 In our opinion, all the aforesaid questions would fall in the realm of 
disputed questions of fact that would have required evidence to be 
lead and proper assessment and adjudication before an appropriate 
authority which in the instant case, even as per the respondents-writ 
petitioners, would have been a remedy available under the ID Act. 
This aspect seem to have been lost sight of by the learned Single 
Judge as also the Division Bench.  The learned Single Judge appears 
to have got swayed by the judgement in the case of
Umadevi (supra) 
to hold that the respondents - writ petitioners had put in service for 
over two decades and were therefore entitled to be regularized in 
terms of the directions issued in the said decision, unmindful of the 
fact that the appellant-Society had categorically refuted the plea taken 
by the respondents-writ petitioners that they had put in 240 days of 
regular service in the past 12 months and  instead, had asserted 
that they failed to satisfy the criteria laid down in Umadevi (supra) 
for purposes of regularization.
13.	 In such circumstances, the services rendered by the respondents-
writ petitioners could not be treated as irregular and would fall in the 
category of illegal appointments without meeting the requisite criteria 
for being appointed to the subject post.  Moreover, the Circulars 
dated 15th December, 1992 and 10th December, 2010, reveal that 
the pool of appointees were confined by the appellant-Society 
to persons who were members of the Member-Society and their 
dependents while excluding all others.  This itself runs contrary to 
the very spirit of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as expounded
1242
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs.  State Of Andhra Pradesh 
and Others5 and Yogender Pal Singh and Others vs. Union of 
India and Others6.
14.	 The following observations made in the case of Yogender Pal Singh 
(supra) are pertinent:
“16. We should, however, point out at this stage a 
fundamental defect in the claim of the appellants, namely, 
that Rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 
which authorised the granting of preference in favour of 
sons and near relatives of persons serving in the police 
service became unconstitutional on the coming into force 
of the Constitution. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the 
Constitution which are material for this case read thus:
“16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for 
all citizens in matters relating to employment or 
appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, 
caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any 
of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in 
respect of, any employment or office under the State.”
17. While it may be permissible to appoint a person who 
is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who 
is incapacitated while rendering service in the Police 
Department, a provision which confers a preferential 
right to appointment on the children or wards or other 
relatives of the police officers either in service or retired 
merely because they happen to be the
children or wards 
or other relatives of such police officers would be contrary 
to Article 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity to get into 
public service should be extended to all the citizens 
equally and should not be confined to any extent to 
the descendants or relatives of a person already in the 
service of the State or who has retired from the service. 
In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 
5	
[1961] 2 SCR 931 : AIR 1961 SC 564 
6	
[1987] 2 SCR 49 : 1987 (1) SCC 631
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1243
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
1961 SC 564 : (1961) 2 SCR 931] the question relating 
to the constitutional validity of Section 6(1) of the Madras 
Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (3 of 1895) came up 
for consideration before this Court. That section provided 
that where two or more villages or portions thereof were 
grouped together or amalgamated so as to form a single 
new village or where any village was divided into two or 
more villages all the village officers of the class defined in 
Section 3, clause (1) of that Act in the villages or portions 
of the villages or village amalgamated or divided as 
aforesaid would cease to exist and the new offices which 
were created for the new village or villages should be 
filled up by the Collector by selecting the persons whom 
he considered best qualified from among the families of 
the last holders of the offices which had been abolished. 
This Court held that the said provision which required 
the Collector to fill up the said new offices by selecting 
persons from among the families of the last holders of 
the offices was opposed to Article 16 of the Constitution. 
The court observed in that connection at pp. 940-41 and 
946-47 thus :
“Article 14 enshrines the fundamental right of 
equality before the law or the equal protection 
of the laws within the territory of India. It is 
available to all, irrespective of whether the 
person claiming it
is a citizen or not. Article 
15 prohibits discrimination on some special 
grounds — religion, race, caste, sex, place of 
birth or any of them. It is available to citizens 
only, but is not restricted to any employment 
or office under the State. Article 16 clause (1), 
guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens 
in matters relating to employment or appointment 
to any office under the State; and clause (2) 
prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in 
respect of any such employment or appointment. 
It would thus appear that Article 14 guarantees 
the general right of equality; Articles 15 and 
16 are instances of the same right in favour of
1244
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
citizens in some special circumstances. Article 
15 is more general than Article 16, the latter 
being confined to matters relating to employment 
or appointment to any office under the State. 
It is also worthy of note that Article 15 does 
not mention ‘descent’ as one of the prohibited 
grounds of discrimination, whereas Article 16 
does. We do not see any reason why the full 
ambit of the fundamental right guaranteed 
by Article 16 in the matter of employment or 
appointment to any office under the State 
should be cut down by a reference to the 
provisions in Part XIV of the Constitution 
which relate to Services or to provisions in 
the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the 
same subject.... (pp. 940-41).
There can be no doubt that Section 6(1) of the 
Act does embody a principle of discrimination 
on the ground of descent only. It says that in 
choosing the persons to fill the new offices, 
the Collector shall select the persons whom he 
may consider the best qualified from among the 
families of the last holders of the offices which 
have been abolished. This, in our opinion, is 
discrimination on the ground of descent only 
and is in contravention of Article 16(2) of the 
Constitution.” (pp. 946-47)
(emphasis in original)
18. We are of the opinion that the claim made by 
the appellants for the relaxation of the Rules in their 
cases only because they happen to be the wards or 
children or relatives of the police
officers has got to 
be negatived since their claim is based on “descent” 
only, and others will thereby be discriminated against 
as they do not happen to be the sons of police 
officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public 
employment on the grounds of descent only has to be 
declared as unconstitutional. The appellants have not
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1245
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
shown that they were otherwise eligible to be recruited as 
Constables in the absence of the order of relaxation on 
which they relied. Hence they cannot succeed.”
(emphasis added)
15.	 We also take note of the submission made by Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, 
learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners that the power 
of judicial review cannot be excluded as that is a remedy which 
was always available to the respondents-writ petitioners dehors 
the equally alternative efficacious remedy available under the ID 
Act.  It is no doubt true that powers of judicial review can always 
be exercised by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of 
India but wherever there are disputed questions of facts that need 
adjudication, it is best left to the competent forum to adjudicate the 
same by examining the evidence brought on record before any 
findings can be returned.
16.	 There are a line of decisions of this Court relating to entertaining 
writ petitions when an alternative remedy is available. Constitution 
Benches of this Court have held that Article 226 of the Constitution 
of India confers a vide power on the High Courts in matters relating 
to issuance of writs (Refer: K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax 
Investigation Commission and Another 7, Sangram Singh v. 
Election Tribunal 8, Union of India v. T.R. Varma9, State of U.P. 
v. Mohd. Nooh10 and
K.S.Venkatraman and Co. (P) Ltd. V. State 
of Madras11).
17.	 At the same time the remedy of writ is a 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 remedy elsewhere (Refer: U.P State Spinning Co. Ltd. V. 
R.S. Pandey & Another12). This discretion is more a rule of self-
imposed restrain than a statutory embargo. In essence, it can be 
described as a rule of convenience and discretion. Conversely, even 
7	
(1954) SCR 738 : AIR 1954 SC 207
8	
(1955) 2 SCR 1 : AIR 1955 SC 425
9	
(1958) SCR 499 : AIR 1957 SC 882
10	
(1958) SCR 595 : AIR 1958 SC 86
11	
(1966) 2 SCR 229 : AIR 1966 SC 1089
12	
[2005] Supp. 3 SCR 603 : (2005) 8 SCC 264
1246
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
if there exists an alternative remedy, it is well within the jurisdiction 
and the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India, in some contingencies, as for example, 
where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of any of 
the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the 
principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are 
wholly without jurisdiction or further, where the vires of the Act is 
under challenge (Refer: Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. 
Ltd. and Others13). The limitation imposed on itself by the High 
Court is more a rule of good sense.
18.	 If a party approaches the High court without availing of the alternative 
remedy provided under the statute, the High court ought not to 
interfere except in circumstances where the party makes out a strong 
case that there exist convincing grounds to invoke its extraordinary 
jurisdiction. In the very same spirit, this Court has held that when there 
is a hierarchy of appeals provided under the statue, a party ought 
to exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to approaching a 
writ court. (Refer: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. and 
Others 14, C.A. Abraham v. ITO and Another15, Titaghur Paper Mills 
Co. Ltd. and Another V. State of Orissa and Others16, Whirlpool 
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others17 
and Punjab National Bank v. O.C.
Krishnan18).
19.	 The rule of alternative remedy came up for discussion in in Whirlpool 
Corporation (supra) and it was held thus: 
“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 
226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not 
limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This 
power can be exercised by the High Court not only for 
issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, 
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement 
of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of 
the Constitution but also for “any other purpose.
13	
(2003) 2 SCC 107
14	
[1952] 1 SCR 583 : (1952) 1 SCC 334 : AIR 1952 SC 192
15	
(1961) 2 SCR 765 : AIR 1961 SC 609
16	
[1983] 2 SCR 743 : (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131 : AIR 1983 SC 603
17	
[1998] Supp. 2 SCR 359 : (1998) 8 SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 22
18	
[2001] Supp. 1 SCR 466 : (2001) 6 SCC 569
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1247
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, 
having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to 
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High 
Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one 
of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is 
available, the High Court would not normally exercise 
its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been 
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar 
in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ 
petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the 
Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation 
of the principle of natural justice or where the order or 
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of 
an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on 
this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, 
we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary 
era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field”.
20.	 In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and 
Others19, a matter relating to the interface between citizens and 
their businesses with the fiscal administration in the context of the 
Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, where the 
High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India challenging the orders of provisional
attachment 
of the property of the assessee by the Commissioner of State Tax and 
Excise, this Court had the occasion to discuss the maintainability of 
the writ petition before the High Court and summarized the principles 
of law in the following words:
“27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to 
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement 
of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a 
writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power 
of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy 
is available to the aggrieved person.
19	
[2021] 3 SCR 406 : (2021) 6 SCC 771
1248
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : 
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a 
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; 
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural 
justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without 
jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High 
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution 
in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition 
should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate 
remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself 
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right 
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory 
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of 
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and 
discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of 
fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in 
a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively 
of the view that the nature of the controversy requires 
the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not 
readily be interfered with.
28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this 
Court in Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad [Chand Ratan v. 
Durga
Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399] , Babubhai Muljibhai 
Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot [Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. 
Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706] and Rajasthan 
SEB v. Union of India [Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India, 
(2008) 5 SCC 632] among other decisions.”
21.	 In the instant case, the disputed questions of facts go to the very 
root of the matter inasmuch as the appellant-Society has questioned 
the plea of the respondents-writ petitioners that they have put in 240 
days of continuous service in the previous 12 months and would 
therefore, be entitled to regularization. This aspect requires evidence 
and its evaluation before the proper forum.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1249
Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers 
Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc.
22.	 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to sustain the 
impugned judgment dated 09th January, 2018 which is quashed and 
set aside.  At the same time, liberty is granted to the respondents-
writ petitioners to seek their remedies under the ID Act and have 
their disputes adjudicated in accordance with law.
23.	 It is clarified that those of the respondents-writ petitioners who are 
continuing in service under the appellant-Society shall not be disturbed 
for a period of six months to enable them to seek appropriate legal 
recourse under the ID Act and move an application for stay which 
shall be heard and disposed of at the earliest on its own merits.
24.	 The appeals are allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Result of the case: 
Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor 
Appeals allowed. 
(Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.)