Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ petition claims to be a Trade Union having registration no. 3702 and operating within the jurisdiction of Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. It is claimed that it is the only Union which strives for the betterment of the service conditions of the employees of the Board. It is claimed that the present writ application is being filed in public interest and in representative capacity. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Respondent- Board to grant the benefit of selection grade and super selection grade scale for removal of stagnation in the categories of highly skilled B and highly skilled A in the next higher scale of pay, in pursuance and in compliance of the Boards Standing Order nos. 454 dated 19.6.1975, 561 dated 1.6.1977, 684 dated 1.9.1988, 695 dated 3.10.89, 743 dated 11.6.1992 with effect from 27.5.1975, 1.7.1977, 1.8.1988 and 11.6.1992 or from the date such employees are entitled for the same as per the Boards own decision and Standing Orders. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board, in which first objection taken is that the writ petition in the form of public interest and in representative capacity is not maintainable. The second objection taken is that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is also stated that the subject matter of the prayer made and relief sought for in the writ application has been referred by the Government of Bihar for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal vide notification no. 1607 dated 6.10.1993, as a result Reference case No. 2/93 is still pending final adjudication. As regards, the first prayer, it is stated that the State Government vide Memo no. 894 dated 9.6.1994 has referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as a result Reference Case No. 15/94 was registered in the Court of Presiding Officer, In dustrial Tribunal, Patna in which a compromise agreement was filed by the parties and on that basis an award was given on 25.4.1995. A photostat copy of the Reference dated 9.6.1994 has been annexed as Annexure-A and the award dated 25th April, 1995 has been annexed as Annexure-A/2. It is stated that in terms of the Award Agenda Note no. A photostat copy of the Reference dated 9.6.1994 has been annexed as Annexure-A and the award dated 25th April, 1995 has been annexed as Annexure-A/2. It is stated that in terms of the Award Agenda Note no. 94 of 1995-96 for creation of Selection Grade Pay scale for the workmen of highly skilled A and Supervisor A category was prepared. The said agenda was placed in 438th meeting of the Board, which was not approved by the Board vide resolution no. 6838, contained in Annexure-B Series. It is stated that validity of the said resolution was never challenged by any of the Union and as such it has reached its finality and cannot be allowed to challenge its validity after expiry of a period of more than four and half years. It is also stated that the petitioner should have approached the Industrial Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by present writ application. 4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is stated that the deponent figures in the case only in the capacity of office bearerof the Union, which has come forward before this Court to safeguard the interest of different categories of employees of the Board working in highly skilled A and highly skilled B categories. As such the application, according to the petitioner, is in public interest and in representative capacity. The petitioner has denied about the pendency of any matter relating to subject matter of the writ petition before the Industrial Tribunal. According to the case of the petitioner, the terms of reference in Reference case No. 2 of 1993 are all of individual character except one that whether the workers of the Bihar State Electricity Board are entitled for III time bound upgradation/promotion, and if entitled then what should be the periodicity. With reference to Reference Case No. 15 of 1994, it is stated that it relates to suspension and dismissal of the General Secretary of the Bihar Rajya Bidyut Parisad Field Kamgar Union and has got no concern with the subject matter of the present writ application. As regards the decision of the Board in its 438th meeting it is submitted that the same is arbitrary, void, malafide and discriminatory. As regards the decision of the Board in its 438th meeting it is submitted that the same is arbitrary, void, malafide and discriminatory. It is claimed that different Union of the Board including the petitioner-Union has raised various demands including the demand for granting Selection grade/super-time selection grade to the employees of highly skilled B and highly skilled A categories with the management and settlement was arrived at on 19.7.1999 on the basis of which letter no. 196 dated 19.7.1999 was issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Board whereby it has been decided that a commission of three members of the Board will be constituted to discuss the demands of the Union, but no Committee was constituted as yet. On demand by various Unions a settlement was again arrived at on 27.1.2000 whereby the Board agreed to constitute a Committee to the members of the Board to discuss and settle the demands. It is stated that the Board is awarding Selection Grade/Super Selection Grade to all the categories of employees except highly skilled B and highly skilled A, which is discriminatory and in violation of the earlier orders of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that it is fit case in which this Court should entertain the writ application for the reliefs sought for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board has submitted that the writ petition in the form of public interest litigation at the instance of so-called Trade Union, not recognised by the Board, is not maintainable. Moreoever for such disputes the effective remedy for adjudication is before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. Moreoever for such disputes the effective remedy for adjudication is before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. The Supreme Court in the case of Sachida Nand Pandey & others V/s. State of West Bengal & others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 had sounded a word of caution that if Courts do not restrict the free flow of case in the name of public interest litigation, "the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions." It was also stated that" it is only when the Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected." 7. Thus, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, in my opinion, this cannot be said to be covered by the said principle decided by the Apex Court for maintaining a writ petition in the form of public interest. At most, it can be said to be that the present writ petition is in the interest of a section of employees, who can agitate their grievance by raising dispute under Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, this Court finds it difficult to entertain this writ petition in representative capacity at the instance of the so-called Trade Union, which does not even claimed to be a recognised Trade Union. 8. The writ petition, thus, is dismissed with a liberty, however, to agitate the dispute under the provisions off Industrial Disputes Act.