O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to allot the duties of the employees by following the Rotation Batch System as per the Circular issued by the respondents in Circular No.Pa.No.Vanigum.Thiva.116 on 21.07.2014 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2021.

2. The petitioner is a Labour Legal Rights Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act. The members of the petitioner Association are serving as Drivers and Conductors in the Transport Corporation.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that as per 12(3) settlement entered into between the Management and the Workmen, the Management has agreed to follow the Rotation Batch System for providing duties. In this regard, a circular was also issued. However, the circular has not been properly followed by the Sub-ordinate officials. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present Writ Petition.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that certain terms are agreed between the Management and the Workmen by way of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Based on the agreement, a circular was also issued. If at all, there is any dispute in respect of the implementation of the circular, then it is to be established in what manner, the Management has violated the terms and conditions of the settlement. In the absence of establishing the violation, the Courts may not be in a position to give a clear relief to the litigants. Therefore, the disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All such disputed issues are to be adjudicated based on the documents in original and evidences and if required through oral evidences. The High Court cannot undertake such enquiry in a writ proceedings for the exact reason that the law contemplates that any violation of the settlement must be adjudicated before the Competent Labour Court for an appropriate relief. Merely based on the affidavit or circular, the High Court cannot form an opinion regarding the extend of violation by the Management or the implementation of the agreement by the Management. These are all the disputed facts which are to be adjudicated. However, this Court is of an opinion that the Transport Corporation being a State is expected to implement the terms and conditions of the settlement in the manner agreed and they should not unnecessarily cause hardship to the workmen who are all working in Transport Corporation. Except these observations, the High Court cannot adjudicate the issues by conducting a roving enquiry in a writ proceedings.

5. In this regard, this Court also elaborately considered the scope of the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10416 of 2009 dated 25.07.2019 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 choo