O R D E R

********

Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and the workman governed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the petitioner has to resolve the dispute before the Labour Court in the manner known to law.

2.The principles, in this regard, are settled by this Court in W.P.

(MD)No.10416 of 2009 and 2926 of 2020, 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 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 effective, then the High Courts must be cautious in entertaining the writ petition and direct those aggrieved persons to approach the Courts competent and thereafter approach the High Court.

47.The very apprehension of these writ petitioners even can be brought before the Industrial Labour Court and the Industrial Labour Courts are competent to issue interim orders also. Industrial Labour Courts are competent to pass orders, whenever the Court thought fit to issue such orders. Thus, it is not as if the industrial Labour Courts are not having any powers to issue any such interim orders or any other orders as necessity warrants. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the Special Courts, appellate authorities created under the Statute as well as under the service Rules must be respected at the first instance by the High Courts and all such authorities / competent Courts / competent forums must be allowed to exercise their powers in the manner known to law.

48. The speedy redressal of the grievances of the litigants of our great Nation is undoubtedly a constitutional perspective. Thus, while dealing with all such cases, the High Court should ensure that the aggrieved persons approach the appropriate Forum at the first instance. Sometimes, it happens that the legal brains are advising to file cases directly in the High Court, without exhausting the statutory remedies available to the aggrieved persons. Such ill-advises or opinions may commercialize the litigations. Commercialization of the judicial systems and dispensation of justice is unconstitutional and can never be tolerated nor be a