Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to place the petitioners in the higher Technical 'B' grade and to fix their pay above the juniors and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioners inter alia is that they are all employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited, the respondent No. 1. Although since the year 1989 they were all in Grade I they have not been granted promotion to the next higher grade. Consequently juniors to the petitioners have been promoted and they were enjoying higher scale of pay than the petitioners. The problem of the petitioners had been taken up by the concerned union who held meeting with the respondents on many occasions and although the benefit of the claim of the petitioners had been admitted no positive step has been taken for extending any relief to the petitioners.
(2.) THE respondents have denied the allegations by filing an affidavit -in -opposition. According to the answering respondents the writ petition is not maintainable as disputed questions of fact are involved in this case which cannot be decided by a writ court. That apart the petitioners are all workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and as such they should have approached the Industrial Tribunal which is the proper forum for the adjudication. National Coal Wage Agreement has been made between all the operative unions and the management of the company. The petitioners being the members of that union cannot raise any issue individually. According to the respondents in the National Coal Wage Agreement all the unions took operative part and had given their consent. The respondents say that the scale of pay of the juniors had become higher than that of the petitioners because of the National Coal Wage Agreement. The respondents, therefore, have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioners have filed an affidavit -in -reply largely reiterating their stand taken in the writ petition.
(3.) THE stand of the respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy is not a very convincing one. This writ petition was admitted on 22nd December, 2003 and from the order passed by a learned single judge it does not appear that the learned advocate for the respondents who was present had raised this objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. As such about 10 years after the admission of the writ petition it will not be proper to dismiss a petition on the ground of alternative remedy, particularly after the exchange of affidavits.;