Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–This petition is filed by a Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, bearing Registration No.86 the Registration having been made on 06.8.86. Its members comprised of the employees of the Public Health Engineering Department, working in the State of Rajasthan. This is alleged to be a representative petition on behalf of workmen who are members of the Union andwhose names are mentioned in the Schedule attached to the petition.

(2). On 1.9.86 a Circular was issued by the Government stating that these employees, who are members of the petitioner-Union were not entitled to payment for weekly holidays and the payments already made should be recovered. These Circulars are impugned in this petition.

(3). It will be worthwhile to note the prayers adverbatum.–

``(a) The respondents be directed to pay to the workman mentioned in the Schedule, salary in the regular pay scale on and from the date they came in service and regularise their payment. The Respondents be also directed to give them all benefits which are being given to the regular employees. If for giving this relief, sub-rule 2 and sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules are considered to be of any impediments, the said sub-rules may be declared to be illegal and may be struck-down.

(b) Further, the respondents be restrained from making any recoveries of payments made for weekly holidays and they may be directed to continue to make payment for weekly holidays to the said workmen.

(c) For giving aforesaid relief, circulars dated 1.9.1986, 17.3.1983 and 27.3.82 may be struck-down.

(d) If for any reason any recoveries are made from the wages of the workman, the Respondents be directed to refund the same to them with interest @ 18% per annum. Further to this if wages for weekly holidays are denied hereafter, the respondents be directed to pay the wages to the workmen with interest @ 18% p.an.

(e) The petitioner Union be awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of this writ petition.

(4). A scrutiny of these prayers will show that each of it is an Industrial Dispute, liable to be raised as such, by the Union on behalf of the members. Prayer (a) pertains to a demand to pay to the workman, salary in regular payscale. If payment of salary is not made, remedy lies under the Payment of Wages Act. If it is not regularand proper salary, remedy can lie under the Minimum Wages Act. In any event, it requires evidence to prove that the employees are entitled to a particular scale of salary and that scale of salary is not being paid to them which cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition.

(5). Prayer (b) demands a writ, prohibiting the respondents from making anyrecovery and a direction to continue to make payment for weekly holidays to the said workmen. The action impugned in this petition whereby payment of weekly holidays was stopped or payment of regular salary as promised by conditions of Service was not being paid. All these actions amount to a change as mentioned in Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such change cannot be brought about with-out notice to the employees and an Industrial Disputes Act can be raised in that regard. It will, thus, be seen that each prayer made in this petition is such as can be agitated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is, therefore, an equally efficacius alternate remedy available for the petitioner-Union to follow. When the matter came up for hearing, this question was raised as to why the Union should not go to the Industrial/Labour Court for adjudication of its dispute as it is equally efficacious remedy, Mr.M.Mridul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union, submitted that the petition having been already admitted, is liable to beheard on merits and should not be dismissed for existance of alternate remedy. The question which arises for adjudication in such circumstances is whether a petition already admitted can be dismissed for availing the alternate remedy.

(6). A brief history of litigation of su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document