1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of 22 persons. Their prayer is to quash Annexure 2, an order dated the 6th September, 1976 by which these petitioners have been retrenched with effect from 6.9.1976 under the orders of respondent no.2, A further prayer that the respondents be directed to forbear from giving effect to the order (Annexure 2) and to direct them not to terminate the services of the petitioners in pursuance there of and to treat the petitioners as in continuous service has also been made.

2. According to the case, as made out in the writ application, all these petitioners are in continuous service of the respondents for more than one year. It is said that all on a sudden the petitioners and 29 others were picked up for termination of their service by a notice dated 4.2.1976. The order was challenged by a writ application in this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 674 of 1976. A prayer for stay of the operation of the order dated 4.2.976 by which the service or the petitioners were terminated was also made in that case. The Bench (to which I was a party) directed stay of the operation of Annexure 3 of that case (the order of termination) by an order dated 4.3.76. That writ application was ultimately allowed by this Court on 11-8-1976 and the order (Annexure 3) terminating the services of the petitioners was quashed. Further, according to the petitioners, they attended the office from 1st September, 1976 up to 6th September, 1976 but they were not given any work. Further it is said that on 6th September, 1976 at about 3 P.M. the petitioners were paid their salary for six months, for the period beginning from 6th March, 1976 to 2nd September, 1976 and there after they were told that they have again been retrenched and that they should not come to works.

3. The order terminating the services of the petitioners has been challenged before us on the ground that they were not paid retrenchment compensation provided under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also on the ground that the principle of last come first go was not adhered to.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to their case, the petitioners were retrenched as they became surplus due to shrinkage of volume of work with effect from 6.9.1976 after complying fully with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to their case, these petitioners were offered wages from 5th March, 1976 up to 6th September, 1976 besides one month's wage in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as payable to them under law. But they say that the petitioners accepted only their wages for the period beginning from 6th March, 1976 to 31st August, 1976 and refused to accept the offer made under other beads. In Support of this statement, annexure A, a certificate dated 6.9.1976 signed by several persons had been filed which reads as follows :-

"It is certified that the following bills have been produced to the petitioners (names enclosed) for payment on 6.9.1976 in the fore-noon and after noon also. They have refused to receive payment except the wages for the period 6.3.1976 to 31.8.1976 against items I below. The other bills against item (2) (3), (4) and (5) were refused by each petitioner quoted above."

The respondents have also denied the allegation that the principle of last come first go bas not been observed.

5. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application According to him, as the order (Annexure 2) terminating the services of the petitioners was tot said to be in violation of any provision of Chapter III of the Constitution of India and as the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, the application should be dismissed in view of section 58 of Constitution 42nd Amendment Act. As to whether raising of an Industrial dispute is an alte