Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents and their subordinate authorities from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the participants in the Dharna held on 27-7-1990 in pursuance of the Memo No. 065533/470/1. R4 (I) dated 24-7-1990 passed by the first respondent herein. 2. The petitioner Union is a registered one under the Trade Unions Act. The Union raised certain demands on the respondents. As the respondents failed and neglected to find amicable settlement by taking unhelpful attitude during negotiation, the talks failed with the result the Union decided to register its protest and decided to agitate in three stages, namely, by staging demonstration in front of divisional offices in January 1990, taking procession in February, 1990 and resorting to Dharna in March, 1990 Since the respondents did not show any interest in settling the dispute, the Union decided to stage Dharna on 20-7-1990 but it was postponed to 27-7-1990. The members of the petitioner Union participated in Dharna. The casual leave applications said to have been submitted on the previous day were rejected. However, they were not informed at the time of participating in Dharna that their leave applications were rejected. The first respondent issued a Circular on 24-7-1990 intimating7 that the members of the Union have announced their intention to stage Dharna on 27-7-1990 and also directing their subordinates to refuse leave and also they should not claim wages to the participants on the principle of “No work, No Wages.” By reason of the members of the petitioner Union participating in Dharna, the respondent took steps to initiate disciplinary proceedings. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the relief aforesaid. 3. Mr. S. Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the participation by the members of the petitioner Union in Dharna is legal and it cannot be said to be illegal and that they are entitled to go on strike and participate ia Dharna and consequently no action should be taken by way of disciplinary proceedings that too when the respondents made a cut in the wages payable to the petitioner on the principle of “No Work, No Wages.” Learned counsel also cited a decision reported in Bank of India v. T.S. Kolawala & Ors. 1 and referred to the following passage. 1 and referred to the following passage. “The deliberate refusal to work further may be legal or illegal as when the employees go on a legal or illegal strike. The legality of strike does not always exempt the employees from the deduction of their salaries for the period of strike. It only saves them from a disciplinary action since a legal strike is recognised as a legitimate weapon in the hands of the workers to redress their grievance.” The Supreme Court has not held that a Mandamus should be issued in favour of the employee restraining the employer from initiating any action. 4. In the instant case, the contention on the part of the petitioner is that the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings for their participation in Dharna. The question whether their participation in Dharna is legal or valid is not a matter for consideration now. On the otherhand, there cannot be a Mandamus directing the employer from forbearing initiating disciplinary proceedings against the participants in Dharna held on 27-7-1990. If any employee is liable for disciplinary proceedings it is open to the respondents to initiate proceedings and in case any defence is available as held by the Supreme Court for the employee it is open to the employee to put forward such a defence so as to convince the employer not to initiate proceedings as against the participants. 5. It is in these circumstances, no Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking disciplinary proceedings can be entertained and hence the writ peti tion is dismissed.