1. - "Enklab Zindabad, CITU Zindabad, RACU Zindabad, Project Allowance Katoti Vapasulo, Kala Adhyadesh Vapasulo" shouting these slogans, the petitioner is alleged to have led a procession & demonstration at not less than prohibited/protected place of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawatbhata Kota on 11th December, 1974. An inquiry and dismissal followed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

2. Whether such a dismissal can be sustained is pivot of debate in this writ petition by a workman against bis employer. The equities are well balanced in this equitable jurisdiction. Shri Mridul's claim of fundamental right of a much more of protected workman in an Industry, of protest and agitation against Katoti in wages and allowances by peaceful method of demonstration and procession, in the new era where workers have been assured participation in the management by the enactment of Article 43A in directive principles of Constitution, cannot be brushed aside as frivolous or vexatious. But creating of disturbance in the functioning of Atomic Power Plant by disturbing people working in the different sections and violating the administrative instructions to restrain & refrain from it in prohibited protected area cannot be ruled out as non-actionable, more so, where atomic power project deserves utmost protection in order to keep lacs of productive industrial undertakings running, and providing power to yet another lac of tube well engines both for agriculture as well as drinking purposes in addision to ensure smooth functioning and working of almost all important sections of urbanis-administration, education, public and private sector, projects and urban life. Where a switch off from the atomic power plants results in putting the entire Rajasthan in black out, creating darkness and gloom throughout the length and breadth from Kota to Jaisalmer and Dungarpur to Jhalawar bringing a disasterous halt to all creative, productive, administrative, educative and agricultural activities, the importance of ensuring smooth functioning of such a plant of gigantic importance cannot be undermined.

3. I would, therefore, prefer to confine myself to the legal debate and not to enter into the weighing of equities for interpreting law in the present peculiar controversy which I have felt better, could have been considered by an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, intereference under the Industrial Disputes Act Unfortunately, the workman has rushed to this Court for invoking Article 226 without realising that this jurisdiction is full of fetters and limitations both constitutional and legal. Neither the management who at one time, at least, was seeking permission thinking that the matter relates to an industrial dispute in an industrial undertaking, thought it better to get it adjudicated rather than to play the gams of hide and seek by moving application and then withdrawing it, nor the workman was made conscious of his legal right to get the reference made to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal so that even the facts alleged and denied about the shouting of the above slogans and quantum of punishment even if it comes to that, can be properly adjudicated. I am, therefore, constrained to observe that both the parties in the present writ petition, have not given just and proper attention for objective consideration for getting a proper, fair and equitable adjudication in a forum created by statute only for such situations.

4. Be that as it may, I must now stop here so far as the preamblary remarks and comments are concerned, and straightaway come to the brass test of the writ petition and the issues involved in it. Memorandum dated the 4th December, 1974 (Annexur- 7) was accompanied by the following charges:

ARTICLE- I

That the said Shri S.N. Singh, T/Man 'D' O & M Section led a procession of employees on 11th December, 1974 at about 12.00 hrs. from near the switch yard to old Administration Block shouting slogans. Shri S.N. Sin