JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsels for the parties.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging that part of the letter as contained in Letter No.515 dated 05.08.2014 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby reference has been refused and advise has been given to move before the competent court of law.

3. It appears that during 1995 to 1996, 883 persons were employed in Class-III and Class-IV post under the Mechanical Division of the respondent-Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. In the year, 1998, vide letter dated 29.08.1998, all such employees have been terminated from the service. Some of the terminated employees have been approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3769 of 2001 and analogous cases, which have been disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2003, directing the Management to take appropriate action after compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also it has been ordered for payment of the salary, they have worked.

4. Thereafter, notice has been issued to the terminated employees by the State Government which has been published in daily Newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” dated 05.08.2003 for filing show cause. Further thereafter, a High Power Committee was constituted on 18.05.2004 and the Committee after considering the show cause, came to the conclusion that the termination is valid and justified.

5. Against such stand of the State Government, industrial dispute has been raised by some of the employees, which has been referred vide Reference Case No.8 of 2006 before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh. After considering the materials and evidence available on record, vide order dated 01.12.2006, award has been decided in favour of the workmen. Against the said award, writ petition has been filed, which is still pending. Another set employees had also moved before this Court by filing W.P.(L) No.3919 of 2008 which has been allowed in favour of the workmen on 25.01.2012. Thus, there is some order by High Court as well as Labour Court in favour of the removed employees.

6. These petitioners have filed present writ petition against the order dated 05.08.2014 whereby their claim, for reference, neither rejected nor allowed, rather advisory jurisdiction has been exercised unknown to law and advise has been extended for moving to the court of law.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.5140 of 2019 (Sunil Vasudeva & Ors. Versus Sundar Gupta & Ors.) arising out of SLP(C)No.5449 of 2015 by Apex Court in 02.07.2018, especially para-31, which is quoted herein below:

“31. In the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to dilate the issues on merits raised in the Writ Petition No. 18500(w) of 1985 filed at the instance of the respondents before the High Court of Calcutta, but if the civil suit was not maintainable as alleged in view of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act and this was the purported defence of the respondents and of the Income Tax Department and consequential effect to the order dated 8th September, 1965 of which a reference has been made by us. No party could be left remediless and whatever the grievance the party has raised before the Court of law, has to be examined on its own merits. In our considered view, there appears no error being committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2014 in exercise of its review jurisdiction and that needs no interference by this Court.”

8. On the strength of the above decision, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that no person can be made remediless.

9. Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, especially para-22, which is quoted hereinbelow :

22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, c