Honble MUKHERJI, J.– The present special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th October, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3310/90, whereby the learned Single Judge holding inter-alia that the writ petitioner-appellant has got alternative efficacious remedy before the Labour Court, apparently following a Full Bench decision of five learned Judges of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1) dismissed the writ application only on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the writ petitioner-appellant.

(2). We have perused the said Full Bench judgment of this Court minutely. The Full Bench took into consideration the fact that in very many judgments, the Supreme Court itself held that alternative remedy is no bar for entertainment of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there may be cases in which this Court inspite of the fact that there is an alternative remedy may interfere depending on the facts of the case. The Full Bench refused to lay down the circumstances/grounds exhaustively in which this Court, inspite of availability of alternative remedies, may interfere in the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since ``it is difficult to lay down conditions/grounds exhaustively as the facts differ from case to case and, as such, conditions/grounds which may be held as sufficient for invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be confined in a water tight compartment. The learned Judges of the Full Bench were very much influenced by the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and even ignored the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that even where the orders were wholly without jurisdiction and were passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, the writ petitioner could not be relegated to avail of the remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Full Bench was very much influenced by the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Basant Kumar Sarkar & Ors. vs. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors. (2), where the Supreme Court relegated the writ petitioners to avail of the alterna- tive remedies, where they could ventilate their grievances in respect of the impugned notices and circulars and take recourse to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or seek relief, if possible, under sections 74 and 75 of the said Act. The Full Bench was also influenced by the observations of the Apex Court in Premier Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Santa Ram & Ors. (3) and held that even the possibility that the Government may not ultimately refer an industrial dispute under section 10 on the ground of expedience, is not a relevant consideration in this regard. However, in the penultimate paragraph by way of conclusion while propounding the ratio of the said judgment it observed that even in such cases where the order is without jurisdiction, it was essentially a question of fact and required investigation before reaching a conclusion and normally such investigation or enquiry was beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and these questions could suitably be agitated and adjudicated upon by the authorities constituted under the Act on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The Full Bench therefore reached 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. The Full Bench answered the question as referred to by the learned Single Judge to the effect that for violation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or violation of the principles of natural justice, the normal course is to pursue the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document