Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioners in this application, have questioned an order of termination of service passed by Eastern Coalfields Limited; The petitioner No. 1 is a workman. His remedy, therefore, in my opinion, is to raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that existence of an alternative remedy only would not preclude this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it can be shown that the impugned order suffers from non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and/or lack of jurisdiction. Under the general law of master and servant no contract of personal service can be enforced. Three exceptions have been carved out namely - (i) when the petitioner enjoys a status and his service conditions are protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) if he is an employee of a statutory corporation, and an order of dismissal is passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of any statutory rule governing the conditions of service; (iii) workman whose conditions of service are governed under the Industrial Disputes Act. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Ram Saran Shastri v. State of West Bengal disposed of on February 13, 1995. Incidentally, in the aforementioned case, Mr. Ghosh himself appeared for the respondents and raised the aforementioned contentions and his contentions had been accepted. In the said judgment, this Court had relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 888, and.
(3.) Moreover, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a self-contained Code. The rights of a workman arise under the said Act. The said Act also provides forums for adjudicating upon the disputes, inter alia, in relation to dismissal, discharge or removal from service. In view of several decisions of the Supreme Court of India, it is now well known that even if an order of dismissal passed by the employer is found to be illegal/invalid, having been passed in violation of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, or without complying with the principles of natural justice, or by an authority having no jurisdiction in such matters, a preliminary issue can be raised at the instance of the employer and a prayer can also be made by him to the effect that he may be permitted to adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled as against the workman. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give such an opportunity to the employer. Moreover, it is well known that this Court cannot convert itself into an Industrial Court. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in the case of Basant Kumar v. Eagle Rolling Mills reported in (1964-II-LLJ-105)(SC) and a recent decision in the case of Mohini v. G.M. Syndicate Bank reported in 1994 II CLR 1001.;