- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This bunch of thirty five writ petitions has bean filed by the workmen claiming to be employees of the Ghatampur Sugar Company Limited, Kanpur Dehat, with a prayer to declare the orders terminating their services illegal. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these cases, these have been heard together with the consent of the parties' learned counsel, and are being disposed of finally by a common order.
(2.) THE Ghatampur Sugar Company Limited is a public sector com pany being a subsidiary of the U. P. State Sugar Corporation. THE service conditions of its employees are governed by the service rules, known as Sugar Standing Orders framed under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. THE common complaint of the petitioners who were appointed to various posts, temporary or on daily rated basis, or for fixed term and were later given appointment in accordance with the Standing Orders is that later on, however on the basis of an alleged policy decision of the Head Office of the company, their appointments were cancelled. THE petitioner's contention is that the said cancellation of appointment is arbitrary and capricious. Having worked for a considerable period on the posts held by them, their appointments could not be cancelled ; the same has resulted into civil consequence, and could not be passed without giving an opportunity to show cause, and is also in breach of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of the petitioner stress has been laid by their learned counsel that the cessation of appointment or promo tion of the petitioners being in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Standing Orders, framed thereunder the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and the employees concerned reinstated. Contention on behalf of the other side, however, is that none of petitioners were regular employees and the alleged appointing authority also did not have power to make these appointments and had done so in all illegal manner despite the ban imposed by the Government on fresh appointments and promotions, hence the cessation of their employment is perfectly valid and legal. The controversy raised by the petitioners consti tuting an industrial dispute, their remedy lies by way of Reference to a Labour Court and not by means of a writ petition to this Court. The controversy raised in these writ petitions, in the opinion of this Court raise an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so far as the controversy relates to a dispute between the workmen and the employer which is connec ted with their employment as well as non-employment. Such dispute this is required to be referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners also having raised contentious questions of facts requiring detailed enquiry, the same cannot be enquired into by this Court in writ jurisdiction, and the parties have to be relegated free to approach the Labour Court. There being an effective alternative remedy, these peti tions deserve to be dismissed.
(3.) ALL these 34 writ petitions, thus, are dismissed in view of existence of alternative remedy to the petitioners. The interim orders stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;