G.M. LODHA J.— These thirty four writ petitions raises common questions of law and, I have therefore, accepted the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties to consider them, together. 2. All the petitioners have been given identical notices of the retrenchment under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 534/1983, Ganga Dhar vs. Union of India and others, this notice of retrenchment (Annexure 2) runs as under:- "WESTERN RAILWAY No. E/E/523/6 (AEN-SWM) D.Ms Office Kota Date 15-2-1983 To: Shri Gangadhar S/o Johri Khallasi C/o PW I [S] GGS Sub: Notice of Retrenchment under Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1. Your Services are not required by the Railway Administration on and from 20.3.83 A.N. for the following reasons: "The work of maintenance of newly laid track from K. M./067/14 to 1071/7 on Morail Bridge No. 356 between MMD-MMW has been completed." The Work of T. S. R. in L Ru yard from KM 1085/65 to 1086/65 is also completed. 2. You are, therefore, served one months notice of retrenchment from 20.2.83: Your services should stand terminated on and from 20.3.83 A.N. 3. You should present your self in the office of PWI (S) GGC on 20.3.83 for receiving your dues. Sd/-........... Divisional Personnel Office Kota Sr. DPO KOTA 1. Shri Gangadhar S/o Johri Khallsi was asked to accept the one month notice given above, but he refused to accept in presence of the following— 1. Shri P. L. Sharma, AEN Inspection/BTE Sd/- 2. Shri Gurucharan Singh PWI (S) GGC A BTE Sd/- 3. Shri Tirath Dass DSK BTE (TI) Sd/- The petitioner, Gangadhar, as well as other petitioners have made a common prayer like this- (a) to issue writ of certiorari and notice (Annexure-2) be quashed as the same being illegal, void and without jurisdiction: (b) to issue writ of prohibition restraining the respondents to give effect to the notice filed as Annexure 2. (c) to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to work according to law and pay all benefits which have accrued to the petitioners under the law: (d) to issue any other order, direction and/or declaration as may be found just and proper the facts and circumstances of the case for which the petitioner may be found entitled be granted to him; and (e) to award cost of this writ petition." 3. The case of the petitioner, Gangadhar, is that he was appointed in the year 1972 and his services were continued. According to the petitioner, his services were broken in between many a times by creating artificial break so that the petitioner should not attain the temporary status. Gangadhar is working as khalasi since 1972 year. 4. Shri S. D. Sharma, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions, submitted that the work in Railway is regular and continuous but only to create a artificial break in service they are transferred illegally from one place of working to another place, as has been done in the present cases. It was pointed out that the respondents are not maintaining the registers as required under the law nor issuing the service cards. 5. Shri Sharma pointed out that the petitioners were engaged as Casual Labourers long before at Morail Bridge and the services were temporary as unskilled casual labourers at the Morail Bridge and as such they are performing the same type of work. 6. It was then argued that the juniors to the petitioners are allowed to work under the same Permanent Way Inspector [PWI] either as Casual Labourers or as alleged Regular Class IV employees and as such the termination of the petitioner is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and violates the fundamental right of the petitioner as enumerated in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 7. Shri Sharma then pointed out that, under the welfare state, the State is under obligation to provide the right to work under Article 41 of the Constitution of India. Once it has discharged its obligation by providing work to the petitioner then such action amounts to disregarding the constitutional obligation as enumerated in Article 41 of the Constitution of India read with Article 39. Then the State has no power under its welfare scheme to discharge an employee merely on the ground that he is temporary. There is no complaint against the petitioner of any kind except that he is allegedly temporary. 8. Shri Sharma also argued that the respondents are neither recruiting the class IV employees according to rule nor maintaining the Register according to Rule nor issuing and recording the entry in service card as per rules. There is no complaint against the petitioner of any kind except that he is allegedly temporary. 8. Shri Sharma also argued that the respondents are neither recruiting the class IV employees according to rule nor maintaining the Register according to Rule nor issuing and recording the entry in service card as per rules. This conduct of respondents is designed to proliferate the corruption and also to exploit the innocent illiterate employees for years together and then throw them when they become over age for the purpose of attracting and collecting the fresh persons for subjecting them to the similar exploitation. This is illegal and against the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India. 9. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have averred that the petitioner, Gangadhar, left the job earlier on 20th March, 1976 and, thereafter he turned up only on 29th October, 1981 to work and he was engaged on Morail River Bridge Project with effect from 29th October, 1981. It was pointed out by Shri N. C. Choudhary, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that now the petitioners are being retrenched due to completion of the project work. 10. Shri Choudhary pointed out that, while retrenching the petitioners, all provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, by which the petitioners are governed were complied with. 11. The respondents contested the allegation of the petitioners that the services of the petitioners were broken up to create an artificial break. 12. In respect of the allegation of the petitioners that they were not screened according to Rules in the screening held in 1980-81 year, Shri Choudhary pointed out that the petitioners were too juniors and all those persons who were placed on the panel were senior to the petitioners except the candidates of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. In support of it, Shri Choudhary submitted a copy of result list (Annexure R. 2). 13. Shri Choudhary then pointed out that the allegation that the junior persons were taken on panel is incorrect on all those persons who were placed on the panel are senior to the petitioners. The respondents then contested that there was no infirmity in the selections which were declared on 24th January, 1982 and which were never challenged at that time by the petitioners. The respondents then contested that there was no infirmity in the selections which were declared on 24th January, 1982 and which were never challenged at that time by the petitioners. It was asserted that the persons who were selected as per the result of the above selection were senior to the petitioners. 14. The respondents further asserted that the petitioners were working as Casual Labourers and they were never selected by the screening committee. Sinc the project work has been completed, the petitioners cannot be retained any more. 15. The allegations that the petitioners were transferred and no fresh appointees on the Morail Bridge, was also denied and it was asserted that the petitioners were, in fact, appointed afresh and not transferred. 16. Shri Choudhary also raised preliminary objection that the writ petitions cannot be entertained because the petitioners have got alternative remedy of filing an application before the Government for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Basant Kumar Sarkar Vs. Eagle Mills (1). 18. A petition was filed in those cases before the High Court challenging the notice given to the workmen for giving effect to the notification under the Employees State Insurance Act (1948) intimating the workmen of the company, that by reason of the said notification the medical benefits which were being given to them in the past would be received by them. In the petition filed before the High court, the workmen alleged that the notice was invalid and should be struck down as the company cannot curtail the benefits. It was held by their Lordships of the Apex Court that although the powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 226 are very wide they could not take in within their sweep industrial dispute of the kind which the contention of the workmen sought to raise. The proper remedy which was available to the workmen to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars was to take recourse to S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief if, possible under Ss. 74 and 75 of the Act. 19. The proper remedy which was available to the workmen to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars was to take recourse to S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief if, possible under Ss. 74 and 75 of the Act. 19. I am of the opinion that the above decision in Basant Kumar vs. Eagle Rolling Mills (supra) of the Apex Court cannot provide any guidance in the matter of retrenchment of the workmen It may be pointed out that on the question whether this Court should entertained the writ petition against the notice of retrenchment; this Court recently in Tejbhan Singh vs. State (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 234/1980 decided on April 27, 1983) considered the various decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. The special appeal was directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Per Dr. K. S. Sidhu J.) dated the 4th August, 1980, where in it was held that, if the workman seeks reinstatement with back wages, he must take recourse to the adjudicatory machinery provided by the Act for the creation and subsequent enforcement of such a right of the authorities appointed under the Act. He does not possess an absolute right of reinstatement capable of being enforced in a court of law". 20. In this Special Appeal,the Division Bench considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles vs. K.S. Wadke (2), Rohtas Industries vs. Its Workmen (3), Union of India vs. Soloman Smith (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 285 of 1980 decided on November 21, 1980). In Union of India vs. Soloman Smith (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after placing reliance on a case of Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Mahaveer Prasad vs. D. K. Mittal, (4) and a case of Division Bench of this Court in Nagpur Central Co operative Bank Ltd. vs. Kesaram (5), it was held as under: "It is well known fact that it is upto the appropriate Government to refer or not to refer a dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Court. The observations made in Premier Automobiles Ltd. case (Supra) by the Honble Supreme Court were made in a case which emanated out of a suit and not out of a writ petition. The scope of writ petition is altogether different than that of a suit. The observations made in Premier Automobiles Ltd. case (Supra) by the Honble Supreme Court were made in a case which emanated out of a suit and not out of a writ petition. The scope of writ petition is altogether different than that of a suit. It would not be fair to dismiss the present writ petition in special appeal on the ground of alternative remedy more especially when it has been heard on merits by the learned Single Judge and he passed appropriate orders thereon. Reference in this connection may be made to 78 ITR P. 26. The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted, is a rule of self imposed limitation, a rule of policy and discretion, rather than a rule of law and this court can issue a writ notwithstanding the fact that statutory remedies have not been exhausted, if the facts of the case so demand. " 21. The Division Bench in Tejbhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) in its decision also referred the decisions of this Court in Om Prakash vs. Registrar Co-operative Societies, (6), Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India (7), Chhajuram vs. State of Rajasthan (8) and Moinuddin vs. Union of India (9). In Moinuddin v. Union of India (supra) D.P. Gupta J. held that alternative remedy under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the Division Bench in Tijbhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) the view taken by the learned Single Judge (Per D.P. Gupta J. ) in Moinuddin vs. Union of India (Supra) is not correct. 22. The Division Bench in Tejbhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) of this Court ultimately after considering the above decisions held as under; "The view taken by Gupta J., is not correct as already discussed by us above. Thus there is a catena of decisions of this Court taking the view that alternative remedy under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is no bar to the maintainability of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution where the order of retrenchment is clearly in violation of Sec. 25F of the Act. The award of back wages is a question of relief. In case there is undisputed material on record, the Court can decide this question also in favour of either party. The award of back wages is a question of relief. In case there is undisputed material on record, the Court can decide this question also in favour of either party. However, if the facts on these questions remain disputed for which some evidence is necessary, the Court may refused to grant relief of back wages on the ground of disputed questions of facts. But this cannot mean that the writ petition itself may be held not maintainable even though the order of retrenchment may be clearly invalid or inoperative being in violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. Thus in our view, the learned Single Judge fell in error in holding that if the workman seeks reinstatement with back wages, he must take recourse to the adjudicatory machinery provided by the Act for the creation and subsequent enforcement of such a right by the authorities appointed under the Act. In our view the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted, is a rule of self imposed limitation a rule of policy and discretion, rather than a rule of law and this Court can issue a writ not withstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted, if the facts of the case so demand. The Court can certainly in a given case can throw out the writ petition where there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be properly determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and which can be suitably determined, only by Labour or Industrial Courts. We find support in our view in Hardayal and Others vs. Union of India New Delhi and Others (1976 Lab-& 1. C. 1426)". 23. The preliminary objections of Shri Choudhary that the writ petition cannot be entertained merely because it relates to a matter in respect of retrenchment which can be agitated under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by a reference, deserves to be rejected. 24. However, as held by the Division Bench in Tejbhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) this Court can certainly, in a given case, throw the writ petitions if there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and which can be cone only a Labour or Industrial Court. 25. 25. A perusal of the writ petitions and reply as well as written argument would go to show that the petitioners have come out with a case which to put it in the words of Shri Sharma is to explode and expose the nepotism, favouritism, arbitrariness and camouflage of corruption of the rackets of the Government Railway Officers. Shri Sharma reiterated the above in the written arguments as under:— "On behalf of the petitioners it is most humble submitted with all sense of responsibility that these cases are examples of very complicated and camouflaged of nepotism, favouritism, arbitrariness and corruption where lacs of class IV illiterate khalasies/Gangmen are being exploited in the name of casual labourers/substitute/and temporary taking the advantage of their illiteracy, maliciously, wilfully by their senior subordinates supervisory staff with the connivance of the senior officers at the Divisional level against the provisions of statutory law by their act of omission in following the various railway laws under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Western Railway Establishment and manual the Railway Establishment Code including Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Constitution of India. The exploitation is multi dimensional. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that annual budget is allotted for the maintenance of railway tracks, railway lines, buildings and bridges etc. The corruption under Permanent Way Inspector of the Works are at magnitude." 26. In fact, during the course of argument and so also in the written arguments, Shri Sharma has pointed out that in the muster-rolls, the names of the persons are included more than actual numbers engaged on work and the thumb impression of the fictitious employees who in fact do not exist but only their names are interpolated in the muster roll are put on the musteroll and the amounts are shared by the higher authorities. According to Shri Sharma, many casual labourers like Gangmen/Khalasies, like Gangadhar are engaged at the residence of Permanent Way Inspector and other senior officers and once they compete two to three months they are dropped for a few days so that they cannot acquire any right. Then they are induced to pay some amount ganging from two hundred to five hundred rupees for taking them back on works. For granting them temporary status, this amount increased upto thousand rupees and for making them regular this amount increases two to three thousand rupees. 27. Then they are induced to pay some amount ganging from two hundred to five hundred rupees for taking them back on works. For granting them temporary status, this amount increased upto thousand rupees and for making them regular this amount increases two to three thousand rupees. 27. Shri Sharma then argued, both, orally and by written arguments, that changing the seniority of casual labourers under the above facts and circumstances is very ordinary for Permanent Way Inspector/Inspectors of Works. No attendance register is maintained and Time Keeper assists Permanent Way Inspector/Inspectors of Works in fabrication and manipulation and in consideration shares the illegal amount. 28. Shri Sharma, in his written argument, averred that he interviewed thousands of casual labourers and also have filed many writ petitions and examined their cases and that the above facts are real and true. Shri Sharma has then made grievance about the working hours and then, posed the question whether the above corruption and exploitation, can be changed and reduced. Shri Sharma, in his 30 pages written arguments, has referred to the several rules, regarding retrenchment, containing Chapter XXXI of the Western Railway Establishment Manual and then referred to the Indian Railway Establishment Chapter XXV and other relevant rules. Shri Sharma has then pleaded that it is mandatory that the registers should be maintained by all the Divisions and Districts concerned to indicate the names of casual labourer, substitute and temporary workmen, and their seniority should be maintained in the order as per the Register of Casual Labourers; which has not been done in the present cases. 29. Shri Sharma then referred to the several infirmities in the Seniority List (Annexure R/4 & Annexure R/l which relates to a number of employees and it has been mentioned that this list has got false references. In substance, the contention of Shri Sharma is that the Seniority Lists produced are false and fabricated. Similarly, Shri Sharma has challenged the Service Cards which according to him are not maintained as per Rule 2513. Shri Sharma further pointed out that the fabrication has been made in the Seniority Lists and Service Cards with a motive to cause injuries to the workmen-petitioners by exporting them. 30. Similarly, Shri Sharma has challenged the Service Cards which according to him are not maintained as per Rule 2513. Shri Sharma further pointed out that the fabrication has been made in the Seniority Lists and Service Cards with a motive to cause injuries to the workmen-petitioners by exporting them. 30. It is obvious that several complicated questions of facts and omissions and commissions of the respondents have been raised by petitioners in these writ petitions and the principal question which is to be considered is whether the petitioners were fresh appointed on the Morail Bridge where the work has been completed or they were having continuous service and were only transferred for the purposes of depriving them of the benefits of long service. Since these questions depend upon the examination of the various records of the Railway and also taking of oral evidence by the rival parties, it is not possible to decide them in these writ petitions. 31. The assertions have been made by Shri Sharma, of rackets of a rocket of creating false and fabricated records and he calls them examples of very complicated camouflaged cases of nepotism, favouritism, arbitrariness and corruption where the lacs of class IV illiterate khalasies/Gangmen have been exploited and such rackets cannot be proved in summary proceedings of writ jurisdiction. 32. In view of the above, thought I do not agree with the objection of Shri Choudhary that no writ petition can be entertained against the retrenchment order and notice because of the alternative remedies under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act but, I find that Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners mentioning the involved facts and alleging several commissions and commissions of the respondents which cannot be adjudicated in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has himself, disentitled the petitioners from being extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. I am, therefore, convinced that these writ petitions cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed because it involves the disputes, involved and complicated questions of fact which cannot be properly determined and, which cannot be specially adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 34. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits about the validity of the retrenchment, these writ petitions as per Schedule A deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed in limine.