Procedure prescribed u/s 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act not followed.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

( 1 ) SINCE all the petitioners are challenging the order of termination of their services, passed by the respondents by the following common order all the writ petitions may be disposed of.

( 2 ) FOR the convenience, I shall refer the facts in W. P. No. 5820 of 1994. The said petition is filed by persons numbering about 40, all working at Hindustan Photo Films, Indu Nagar, Ootacamund. According to them, all of them were appointed as trainees (helpers ). The Hindustan Photo Films is a Government of India undertaking and it is an instrumentality of the State. It is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the writ petitions against the respondents are maintainable. It is further contended that even though they were appointed as trainees, the petitioners are performing various clerical work, skilled, unskilled, manual and, technical. They would come within the term employee as defined in the Standing Orders applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners are workmen, as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). They had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioners are described as trainees, trainee searcher, trainee office Assistant, etc. But, they are discharging regular duties as regular employees. Some of the trainees had been absorbed and the respondents do not have any specific programme or rules as to how the trainee should be absorbed and it is mostly left to the whims and fancies of the respondents. Suddenly, the respondents decided to terminate the services of several trainees, which include both management executive and worker trainees. It is further contended that the action of the respondents is opposed to provisions of the Act and in any event, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated without giving an opportunity to putforth their case. Since similar contentions were raised in all the above writ petitions, I am not referring the same.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. The case of the respondents as seen from the counter-affidavit is briefly stated hereunder :-The respondent company is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in manufacture and marketing of photo-sensitized products. It has a factory for manufacturing purpose at indu Nagar, Ootacamund, Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu. A little over 3,300 persons were employed in various categories. Due to financial crisis, the respondent company Board passed a resolution requesting the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for declaring the respondent company as a sick industry. Further, it is submitted that the respondent company does not have any vacancy to be filled up. It is also contended that the present writ petitions are not maintainable, since the General Secretary of the Indu Employees Progressive Union, have raised an industrial dispute on March 15, 1994, espousing the cause of trainees and the same is pending for adjudication before the Labour Officer at Ootacamund, regarding their alleged termination. It is further submitted that apart from the Indu Progessive Socialist Centre, HPF, affiliated with AITUC, HPF also have raised an industrial dispute and the same is pending before the Labour Officer, Ootacamund. In such circumstances, without pursuing, the said remedy and without deciding the matter, namely, whether the trainees are entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act, the same cannot be considered, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in these writ petitions. It is further contended that the writ petitioners were engaged as trainees on specific terms and conditions of contract. They were paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 800 for a specific period and it was made clear in the engagement letter that it was purely temporary and will not make them eligible for permanent employment