Judgment :- (Appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30-3-2005 in WPMP No.4526 of 2005 in W.P. No.4064 of 2005.) This writ appeal is filed against the interlocutory order dated 30-3-2005 in a pending writ petition, W.P. No.4064 of 2005. 2. Since the writ appeal was filed against an interlocutory order, we directed the listing of the writ petition itself for final hearing and, accordingly, the writ petition is listed today before us along with the writ appeal. 3. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 17-11-2004 in demoting the writ-petitioner from the post of Head Clerk as Salesman and to quash the same and consequently to reinstate him in the same post. Admittedly, the writ-petitioner was working as Head Clerk in the fourth respondent Society. By the impugned order dated 17-11-2004, he was relieved from the post of Head Clerk in Kancheepuram branch and was transferred to Salem branch as Salesman. 4. In our opinion, since the writ-petitioner was a Head Clerk, he was admittedly a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, he is having an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute as held by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Markandey Katju, Chief Justice) was a party, in INDIAN ADDITIVES LIMITED v. INDIAN ADDITIVES EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANOTHER (2005 Writ L.R. 22). In that decision, the Division Bench has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamachari Sangh (2004 [4] SCC 268); The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnakant ( AIR 1995 SC 1715 ); and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantaram Wadke (1976[1]SCC 496). Apart from the above, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, in paragraph 26, that the writ petitioner had in pursuance of the transfer order dated 17-11-2004 joined at Salem on 29-11-2004. This fact has been concealed in the writ petition and hence, in our opinion, the writ petition has not come with clean hands and for this reason also is disentitled to the discretionary relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. This fact has been concealed in the writ petition and hence, in our opinion, the writ petition has not come with clean hands and for this reason also is disentitled to the discretionary relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ appeal becomes infructuous and it is dismissed as infructuous. Connected WAVMP No.2139 and WAMP No.1832 of 2005 are closed.