JUDGMENT

M. B. SHAH, J. — Leave granted.

2. Unprecedented action of the Tamil Nadu Government terminating the services of all employees who have resorted to strike for their demands was challenged before the High Court of Madras by filing writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge by an interim order inter alia directed the State Government that suspension and dismissal of employees without conducting any enquiry be kept in abeyance until further orders and such employees be directed to resume duty. That interim order was challenged by the State Government by filing writ appeals. On behalf of the Government employees, writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 and also Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 2003.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the interim order and arrived at the conclusion that without exhaust¬ing the alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal, writ petitions were not maintainable. It was pointed out to the Court that the total detentions were 2211, out of which 74 were ladies and only 165 male and 7 female personnel have so far been enlarged on bail, which reveals the pathetic condi¬tion of the arrestees. The arrestees were mainly clerks and subordinate staff. The Court, therefore, directed that those who were arrested and lodged in jails be released on bail.

4. That order is challenged by filing these appeals, for the same reliefs, writ petitions under Article 32 are also filed.

5. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that under Arti¬cle 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to meet unprecedented extraordinary situation having no parallel. It is equally true that extraordinary powers are required to be sparingly used. The facts of the present case reveal that this was most extraordinary case, which called for interference by the High Court, as the State Government had dismissed about two lakh employees for going on strike.

6. It is true that in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L & S) 577, this Court has held that it will not be open to the employ¬ees to directly approach the High Court even where the question of vires of the statutory legislation is challenged. However, this ratio is required to be appreciated in context of the ques¬tion which was decided by this Court wherein it was sought to be contended that once the Tribunals are established under Article 323-A or Article 323-B, jurisdiction of the High Court would be excluded. Negativing said contention, this Court made it clear that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and it cannot be said that such Tribunals are an effective substitute of the High Courts in discharging powers of judicial review. It is also an established principle that where there is an alternative, effective, efficacious remedy available under the law, the High Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and that has been reiterated by holding that the litigants must first approach the Tribunals which act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and there¬fore, it will not be open to the litigants to directly approach the High Court even where the question of vires of the statutory legislation is challenged.

7. In L. Chandra Kumar case the Court inter alia referred to and relied upon the case in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India : AIR 1956 SC 479 : 1956 SCR 267, wherein Bose, J. made the following observations :

“The heart and core of a democracy lies in the judicial process, and that means independent and fearless judges free from executive control brought up in judicial traditions and trained to judicial ways of working and thinking. The main bulwarks of liberty and free