Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay bonus and ex-gratis for casual and temporary workmen for the year 2004-2005 as given to other employees and award costs.) The petitioner is the General Secretary or the State Transport Employees Union. The respondent is the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, there are 18,000 workmen who are the members of the petitioner Union and out of them 1000 are casual and respondent through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.137, Transport Department, dated 14.10.22005 is not paying any bonus to the casual and temporary labourers. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay bonus and ex-gratis for casual and temporary workmen for the year 2004-2005 as given to other employees. 2. Heard Mr. D. Hariparantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the sworn affidavit of the petitioner. 3. In paragraph 7 or the affidavit, it is clearly stated that the petitioner Union have filed W.P.No.31640 of 2004 praying for a direction to pay bonus to the casual and temporary workmen for the years from 2000 to 2004 and this Court disposed of the same directing the petitioner to approach the respondent and make a representation. The respondent passed an order dated 18.12.2004 stating that only eligible employees are entitled for bonus. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner canvassing the cause of the casual and temporary employees filed C.P.No.255 to 336 of 2005 under Section 33 (c)(2) before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that those disputes are pending before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. Pending those disputes, the present writ petition is filed, seeking the same relief. 4. In A.P. Foods Vs. S. Samuel and others reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 1136, the Apex Court has clearly held that in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it has been held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained, when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 5. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows: “7. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. 5. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows: “7. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Settuji Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect are the decisions in Premiers Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajsathan SRTC v. Krishna Kani, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad and Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred. 8. In Rajasthan SRTC case it was observed as follows: (A) Speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with their layers upon layer of appeals and revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedures followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and remake the contracts, settlements, wage structures and what not. Their wards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendments should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them.” 6. After the above observations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the said High Court have failed to consider the basic issues. In the normal course, they would have left it to the respondent therein to avail appropriate remedy under the Act. 7. Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act says that where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act, or with respect of the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State. Section 32 deals with the Act not apply to certain classes of employees. Thus, following the law of the land and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and other decision referred supra, this court comes to the conclusion that there are no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner is to canvass his cause in C.P.Nos.255 to 336 of 2005 pending before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The connected M.P. is closed.