Judgment :- The Hon'ble Chief Justice: The above two writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 6.3.2003 in W.P. Nos.16527 to 16536, 16537 to 16546, 16565 to 16574 and 16575 to 16584 of 2000. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioners challenged their termination of service on the ground of violation of sections 25F, 25G and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act directly by filing writ petitions in the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and by the Supreme Court that such writ petitions should not be entertained. If any one alleges violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, his remedy is to raise an industrial dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and not to directly file a writ petition in this Court. This kind of practice of directly approaching the High Court in such matters cannot be approved or encouraged. 3. In Madura Sugars Staff Union & others v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 Writ L.R. 25 this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & others v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268 has taken a similar view. This Court in Indian Additives Limited v. Indian Additives Employees Union, 2005 Writ L.R. 22 has also relied on the Supreme Court decision in The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 where the Supreme Court observed:- "Where, however, the dispute involved recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act." 4. Despite the clear decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court a practice has developed in many High Courts in the country of directly filing writ petitions in the High Court alleging violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This practice cannot be approved or encouraged otherwise there will be a flood of such litigations in the High Courts. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the parties must ordinarily avail of it and not rush directly to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This practice cannot be approved or encouraged otherwise there will be a flood of such litigations in the High Courts. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the parties must ordinarily avail of it and not rush directly to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the aforesaid decisions both the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. It is open to the writ petitioners to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, and if they do so the same will be decided expeditiously. Consequently WAMP Nos.717 and 718 of 2005 are closed.