VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that retrenchment of the petitioners be declared null and void and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed on muster roll basis on the post of Beldar and Cooli on the dates mentioned in the writ petition. The services of the petitioners were allegedly terminated on the dates mentioned in the writ petition, in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Act of 1947. Heard at admission stage. The main controversy raised in this writ petition is that the petitioners have completed 240 days of service in one calendar year and services of the petitioners have been terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25f, G and H of the Act of 1947. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioners have alternative remedy of raising industrial dispute under the provisions of Act of 1947 and the same has not been availed of by the petitioners. In my opinion, where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to a litigant, he should pursue that remedy and may not invoke special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ.
(3.) THE remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being, in general discretionary, the High Court may refuse to grant it where there exists an alternative remedy, equally efficacious and adequate. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. Thus, where statutory remedies are available or a statutory tribunal has been set up, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained, unless the statutory remedies are ill suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. In my considered opinion, where a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court, in exercise of its discretion under Article 226, may decline to interfere until all the statutory remedies are exhausted. ;