The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether an entity is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and the availability of alternative remedies as per the relevant Act.

1. These letters patent appeals and writ petitions were heard on remand from the Supreme Court. Letters patent appeal Nos. 182 and 183 of 1992, arising from writ petition No. 497/1992, were dismissed by judgment and order dated 27th January, 1999. The Division Bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable as Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board is not `State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Following the said judgment, OWP No. 523/1995 & SWP No. 930/1998 were dismissed respectively on 8th February, 1999 and 23rd January, 2001. Feeling aggrieved the appellants / petitioners approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the cases had been decided on the basis of the decisions in Bhuri Nath & ors. v. State of J&K, (1997) 2 SCC 745, which did not apply to the facts of the case, and Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCC 485, which had been overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111. Setting aside the impugned judgments of this Court, the appeals / writ petitions were remitted back for hearing and decision in accordance with law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswass case (supra) in the following terms:

"... The High Court shall, therefore, first consider the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by examining whether the Shrine Board is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, by applying the principles and tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (supra).

The High Court shall also consider whether any alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners by way of civil suit or industrial adjudication. It shall be open to the High Court to take an appropriate decision thereupon, including the relegation of the parties to the appropriate remedy, if the High Court upon interpretation of the provision of Section 20 of the 1988 Act (The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988) comes to the conclusion that such alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners before it.

In case the High Court takes the view that writ petitions are tenable, and that no other equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners, then the High Court shall decide the writ petitions on their merits.

Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to have a birds eye view of the facts of the case.

2. In writ petition, OWP No. 497/1992, giving rise to LPA Nos. 182 and 183 of 1992, the petitioners were employees of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (in short the Shrine Board). They formed a union for collective bargaining professedly to improve their conditions of service. The union was registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, Jammu and Kashmir on 11th December, 1990. On 15th January, 1991, however, the Registrar of Trade Unions informed the President, Shrine Board Employees Union that they could not form a trade union as the Shrine Board, their employer, was not a trade or industry. The terms of employment of employees of the Shrine Board are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 and since its employees are deemed to be public servants under section 15 of the Act, they are not registerable as a trade union under Indian Trade Union Act, 1986. The Registrar further informed that the registration having been obtained by mistake, it would be deemed to be withdrawn from 10th March, 1991. Despite withdrawal of the registration, the appellants and other employees of the Shrine Board carried on their trade union activities, incurring displeasure of the officers of the Shrine Board. The Shrine Board allegedly started victimizing them for the activities. Some of the employees were even removed from service. The concerned employees filed writ petition No. 497/1992 challenging termination of their services seeking writ of mandamus for their re-instatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. A