Claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is an alternative remedy that ordinarily bars the filing of a writ petition.

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. The petitioner, a Pump Operator, was working on purely temporary basis. His services were terminated by the Sectional Officer, in-charge, vide his letter dated 29th September, 1981, with effect from 30th September, 1981. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the said order. The petitioner came up for motion hearing on 20th July, 1982. On the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. Rajappa 1978-II L.L.J. 73, notice of motion was issued by the Bench. In response to that notice the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted. At the time of final motion hearing, one of the points that arose for consideration was that the present petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have first availed of the alternative remedy under the Act by claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that remedy under the Act was neither adequate nor speedy nor efficacious and that the petition deserved to be decided on merits by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, had relied on a judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1983) 1 Serv. LR 38, wherein, on this aspect of the matter, it has been observed, thus:

As regards the first preliminary objection, it may be observed that petitioners could not have claimed reference of their dispute under Section 10 of the Act as a matter of right and, therefore, provisions of Section 10 cannot be considered to be providing an alternative remedy of the kind which may be considered as bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. The aforesaid view had already found favour with Delhi High Court in Malkhan Singh v. Union of India 1981-II L.L.J. 174.

2. The Bench, on consideration of the entire matter, found itself unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. Consequently, the petition was admitted and ordered to be heard by a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.

3. The short question that falls for our consideration may be formulated thus:

Whether the mode of redress provided to a workman by claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Act, can be regarded as an alternative remedy so as to ordinarily bar the filing of a writ petition.

4. What was contended by Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that a workman could not claim reference under Section 10 the Act as a matter of right, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 10 could not be considered to be providing an alternative remedy, which might be considered as a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel had relied on the following judgments, besides the Division Bench judgment in Rajbir Singhs case 1983-1 Service LR 38 (Punj. & Har.) (supra), Malkhan Singh v. Union of India 1981 Lab IC 1633 (Delhi), Mahabir v. D.K. Mital (1979) 3 Serv LR 497 : 1980 Lab IC 119 (Pat.) : 1981-II L.L. J. 382 between Assistant Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Olavakkot v. K.T. Antony 1978-II L.L.J. 254 and Duryodhan Naick v. Union of India 1969 Lab IC 1282 (Orissa).

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find myself unable to; agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. It may be observed at the outset that I find that the question posed for our decision stands fully answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke 1975-II L.L.J. 445, against the petitioner, and it would not only be futile but wasteful to examine the matter independently in depth. In the Premier Automobiles case (supra) precisely a similar contention had been raised and dealt! with, as would prese