1. - The important preliminary question which demands and needs answer in all these writ petitions is whether for the enforcement of a right or an obligation created by or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter "the Act") a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can or should be entertained straightway by this court without the petitioners having first exhausted or availed of the remedy provided to them for the enforcement of such rights or obligations by the Act itself.

2. I may proceed to analyse the various rights, obligations and liabilities created under the Act and the remedies for their enforcement provided for or available under the Act. Before proceeding to do that, it may be mentioned that the cases of dismissal of a servant fall under three broad heads. The first head relates to relationship of master and servant governed purely by contract of employment. Any breach of contract in such a case is enforced by suit for wrongful dismissal and damages. Just as a contract of employment is not capable of specific performance similarly breach of contract of employment is not capable of finding a declaratory judgment of subsistence of employment. A declaration of unlawful termination and restoration to service in such a case of contract of employment would be indirectly an instance of specific performance of contract for personal services. Such a declaration is not permissible under the law of Specific Relief Act (See Dr. S. Dutt v. University of Delhi. AIR 1958 S.C. 1050 , Vaish Degree College v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1976 S.C. 888 and Dipak Kumar v. Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1987 S.C. 1422.

3. The second type of cases of master and servant arises under Industrial law where under an Industrial Tribunal has power in an award made on a reference under the Act to direct reinstatement of discharged employees. It was observed in Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1949 F.C. III at P. 115 , that :

"Any dispute connected with the employment or non-employment would ordinarily cover all matters that require settlement between workmen and employers, whether those matters concern the causes of their being out of service or any other question, and it would also include within its scope the reliefs necessary for bringing about harmonious relations between the employers and the workers".

4. Thus under Industrial law, a servant who is wrongfully dismissed or discharged may be reinstated. This is a special provision under Industrial Law. This relief is a departure from the reliefs available under the Indian Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act which do not provide for reinstatement of a servant.

5. The third category of cases of master and servant arises in regard to the servant in the employment of the State or of other public or local authorities or bodies created under statute. The Courts keep the State and the public authorities the limits of their Statutory powers. Where a State or a public authority dismisses an employee in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements or the grounds which are not sanctioned or supported by statute, the Courts may exercise jurisdiction to declare the act of dismissal to be a nullity. Such implication of public employment is thus distinguished from private employment in pure cases of master and servant. Then as laid down in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (AIR 1967 S.C. 1269 ), that the rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. That is the basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case. This principle would be equally applicable to local Government bodies which fall within the definition of ',State" given in Article 12 of the Con