( 1. ) THE common point of law involved in these two cases, which are heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment, vocalises a single grievance based on infraction of the statutory right inscribed in Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act ).

( 2. ) STATE Counsel, Shri Qureshi, has laboured hard to convince me that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke this Courts writ jurisdiction because the alternative remedy available to them under the Act has not been exploited or exhausted. Counsel has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Paras kumar (1984 MPWN 436) wherein it was held that the petitioners having remedy of the Civil suit provided to them under Section 8 of the Public Trust Act, exercise of writ jurisdiction could not be invoked by them. Because the Apex Court in its recent decision in Ram Shyam Co. (AIR 1985 S. C. 1147) has stated the law authoritatively dealing with the same contention it behoves me to refer thereto immediately as law stated by their Lordship, in virtue of the constitutional mandate of Article 141, is binding on me and all courts and authorities in India, as the law of the land. Their lards