The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the importance of maintaining institutional respects and the principles of separation of powers.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and papers from the files of the respondent in its proceedings 1/G3/3613/THA.APOKA/06 dated 28.01.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay all the monetary benefits withheld by the respondent pursuant to the Impugned order.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and papers from the files of the respondent in its proceedings 1/G3/4204/THAAPOKA/12 dated 22.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to pay all the monetary benefits with held by the respondent pursuant to the impugned order.)

Common Order

1. The writ petitions have been filed, challenging the order of punishments passed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited.

2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.16083 of 2014 was working as Conductor and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.16084 of 2014 was working as Driver and retired from service. During the relevant point of time, the petitioners approached the Labour Officer and therefore, they have to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of issues. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were workman and their service conditions were governed under 12 (3) Settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Thus, the petitioners are bound to exhaust the Statutory remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly, they are at liberty to raise a dispute before the Labour Court.

4. Further, in respect of the workmen governed by the Settlement made under Section 12(3) of the Act, this Court has elaborately considered the principles, based on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of P.Muthukrishnan v. Management of T.N.S.T.C.(Madurai) Ltd., reported in 2019-IV-LLJ-152 (Mad), wherein maintainability of petitions have also been considered and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“45.This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well defined. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court held that the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed, not against a decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and / or error apparent on the face of the decision which goes to the root of the decision, made various decision making process. In the event of no such decision or in the event of no such actions on the part of the respondents, in a writ petition, then the High Court cannot issue any direction based on certain apprehensions raised by the parties in the writ petition. Thus, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been well defined and therefore, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition in a routine manner where a statutory remedy is very much available for the litigants to redress their grievances by following the procedures.

46.Forum choosing by the litigants can never be encouraged. It is not as if the aggrieved persons can choose the forum. When a definite forum is contemplated under the Statute, they are bound to approach the same and thereafter approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If such litigants who all are claiming to be aggrieved is permitted to approach the High Court directly without exhausting the statutory remedies provided under the Act, then the High Courts are not only over burdened, but the High Courts would not be in a position to render justice as warranted under the constitutional principles. The extraordinary jurisdiction are to be exercised efficiently, speedily in order to provide justice to the citizen at large. In the event of entertaining such matters, where alternate remedy is available under the Statute which all are procedurally effectiv