Judgment :- S.P. TALUKDAR, J. (1) The writ petitioners claiming to have authority to espouse the causes of the employees of Basumati Corporation Limited, being respondent No.4 herein, filed the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2) Government of West Bengal took over the management of Basumati Corporation Ltd. under the provision of the West Bengal Act of 1974 making a statute thereof under the name of the Basumati Pvt. Ltd. (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974. Basumati Corporation Ltd. becoming a Government of West Bengal Undertaking, the employees thereof are entitled to get facility whatever has been enacted in 1955 Act for the non-journalist employees of the newspaper. Basumati has an excellent track record in the field of newspapers, which, however, could not be appreciated by the Government of West Bengal in its proper perspective. Unfortunately, whereas private newspaper groups are forging ahead, the State Government did not take any initiative for nurturing this newspaper Basumati. This was largely due to non-application of mind on the part of the management as engaged by the Government of West Bengal. In view of such indifferent attitude on the part of the State Government, the employees of the Basumati are deprived of all the reasonable benefits which the newspaper employees, both journalists and non-journalists, are entitled to get. (3) Anxiety and agony of the employees of the Basumati Corporation Ltd. have not received the care and attention, the same deserved. The recommendation of the Manisana Wages Commission has already been implemented in all newspapers in India except for the employees of Basumati. It is alleged that the State Government is no more interested to keep the Basumati as one of its undertakings and is interested to put the unit in the hand of private promoter. Such employees of the Basumati are receiving interim relief of the wage i.e. 20% Basic and Rs. 100/-for quite sometime. But the State Government is trying not to implement the recommendation of the wage commission fully. The State Government, thus, seems to be determined to deny the persons being represented by the writ petitioners their legitimate claim. The claim of the writ petitioners is confined to the demand for implementation of the recommendation of the Statutory Wage Board of the Manisana Committee. The employees so represented by the writ petitioners are also aggrieved by the Government decision to transfer the unit in favour of private promoter. The claim of the writ petitioners is confined to the demand for implementation of the recommendation of the Statutory Wage Board of the Manisana Committee. The employees so represented by the writ petitioners are also aggrieved by the Government decision to transfer the unit in favour of private promoter. For non-implementation of the recommendation of the Manisana Commission, the large number of employees have been put into serious inconvenience. Right to life and livelihood being a right of fundamental importance, the same cannot be taken away by whims and caprice of any authority. (4) Notice under section 7(i) of the Statute had already been sent, inter alia, inviting attention of the State Government to fulfil the legitimate claim of the employees. The petitioners have sought for implementation of the recommendation of the said Manisana Commission while assuring that they would ensure that the unit is converted into a profitable one. Such consistent indifference, if not hostility, on the part of the State authorities, compelled the petitioners to approach this Court with such application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking redressal of their grievances. (5) The petitioners have sought for restructure of the pay scales in consonance with other undertakings of the Government of West Bengal as well as for other reliefs. (6) In response to this, the respondent authority, being the Managing Director of Basumati Corporation Ltd., contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition thereby denying all the material allegations made by the writ petitioners. It was claimed that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches. Since Manisana Wage Board Recommendation was published in December, 2000, there could be no reason for the petitioners not to seek redress at the appropriate stage. In order to go ahead with restructure of pay scale, it is necessary for the petitioners to show that there are funds available from which the desired payments may legally be made. The Basumati Corporation Ltd. is virtually gasping for breath. It used to make huge losses every day. It was further claimed that the Basumati Corporation Ltd. is a Government of West Bengal undertaking. The main business of the company was publication of journals, newspapers, periodicals and books. The entire equity capital of the company is held by the State of West Bengal and its nominees and conduct of the business is subjected to the directions of the State. The main business of the company was publication of journals, newspapers, periodicals and books. The entire equity capital of the company is held by the State of West Bengal and its nominees and conduct of the business is subjected to the directions of the State. The company virtually depends solely on loans received from the State of West Bengal with 15% rate of interest. (7) At present, the company undertakes only printing job from various departments of the Government. Publication of Dainik Basumati was stopped from 7th October, 1992 due to recurring losses. There being no scope for its running profitably, stress was given for job printing work. The unit of Siliguri, which started its publication of Dainik Basumati after being transferred from Kolkata since July, 1992 was also closed on 31st March, 2004 due to recurring losses since its inception. The total accumulated loss as on 31.3.2007 is Rs. 72.77 crores and the amount of outstanding unsecured loan along with interest is Rs. 84.06 crores. The gross income during 2002-2003 was Rs.396.95 lakhs. In 2006-2007, the net income has been Rs. 549.93 lakhs. The total expenditure excluding interest payable on Government loan, prior period expenditure and Fringe Benefit Tax. for the year 2002-2003 has been Rs. 567.87 lakhs and that for the year 2006-2007 has been Rs. 669.19 lakhs. A brief table showing the statement of accounts is made out hereunder: - (*) Including displacement compensation - Rs. 34.21 Lakhs. (8) Thus, the accumulated losses exceed the entire net worth of the company by Rs.72.67 crores as can be seen from the latest audited balance sheet as on 31st March, 2007. (9) Against such backdrop of financial stringency, the workmen were paid interim relief of the said Wage Board at the rate of 20% of the basic pay and additional amount of Rs. 100 p.m. w.e.f. April 20,1995 and ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs. 200 p.m. w.e.f. 1st March, 2004. The benefit was also extended to the casual and contractual employees. A further ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs. 135/-was also granted to the employees and other contractual and casual employees w.e.f. 1st October, 2006. The employees of the Corporation were allowed pay scales recommended by the Bacchawat Wage Board w.e.f. 1st January, 1998 by the Government. The benefit was also extended to the casual and contractual employees. A further ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs. 135/-was also granted to the employees and other contractual and casual employees w.e.f. 1st October, 2006. The employees of the Corporation were allowed pay scales recommended by the Bacchawat Wage Board w.e.f. 1st January, 1998 by the Government. The State Government had awarded different Wage Board recommendation, for instance, the Palaker Wage Board and the Bacchawat Wage Board, from time to time when it was within the capacity of the Government when Dainik Basumati newspaper used to be published. (10) So far assumption that the Corporation is contemplating to hand over the unit to a private promoter is concerned, the respondent has sought to assail it on the ground that it is misconceived and on this score alone, the writ application is liable to be dismissed. The respondent authority further claimed that employees of the company cannot interfere in any policy decision. It had been further claimed that revision of pay scale is in the domain of the employer and ought not to be subjected to judicial review. It had been alleged that the employees of the Corporation accepted the interim/ad hoc payments from time to time without demure and did so, knowing fully well the acute financial condition of the Corporation due to which the implementation of the Manisana Wage Board recommendations in its entirety would not be possible. The writ application, thus, had been further assailed on the ground that it is barred by the laws of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel. The respondent further claimed that the petitioners have erroneously identified the company with the State Government. It is a sick industrial company within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The said respondents alleged that the entire cause of action is based on mere speculation. (11) The respondent authority denied that the State Government does not want to implement the pay structure of the non-journalist employees of the newspaper as provided in 1955 Act. The petitioners are workmen who have all along been well aware of the financial crisis and they did not choose to seek remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. They now cannot be permitted to seek redress before this Writ Court long after 10 years. The petitioners are workmen who have all along been well aware of the financial crisis and they did not choose to seek remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. They now cannot be permitted to seek redress before this Writ Court long after 10 years. Such respondents categorically stated that it has no contemplation for handing over the unit to any private promoter. In view of the financial constraint, the Wage Board recommendation cannot be implemented beyond the financial capacity of the company. (12) For all such reasons, dismissal of the writ application was sought for. (13) Before dealing with the various issues raised in course of submission, it is, perhaps, necessary to refer to the backdrop of the present case. (14) The State of West Bengal acquired M/s. Basumati Corporation Ltd. and the Basumati Private Ltd. (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974 was, thus, enacted. The object behind, as mentioned, is : "An Act to provide for the acquisition, for public purpose, of the undertaking of the Basumati Private Limited with a view to securing the proper administration and management thereof for the purpose of ensuring efficient publication of the Basumati, a daily newspaper in the Bengali language which has a great past and tradition and timely publication of journals and periodicals published by it and resuming the publication of books, particularly Sanskrit Classics in Bengali version and other Bengali Classics, and also with a view to assuring the retention of the services of the workmen whose continued employment has been threatened, so that the interests of the public may be better served." (15) It, thus, cannot be disputed that every significant reason for such enactment was to assure the retention of the services of the workmen whose continued employment has been threatened. Section 7 of the said Act lays down that every person, who is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has been, immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of the company shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to be reappointed as an employee of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the Corporation in which the undertaking may be vested by an order under sub-section (1) of section 6 and shall hold office on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pay gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking of the company had not been vested in the State Government or in such Corporation................... (16) Under section 7 of the Acquisition Act, 1974, the workmen of the company were to continue to hold office unless and until their employments were duly terminated or terms and conditions of employment were duly altered by the State Government or the Corporation as the case may be. (17) Mr. Chatterjee, as learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, submitted that though Basumati Corporation Ltd. is a Government company as understood under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, its employees enjoy a special right, namely, legal right regarding pay etc. as conferred by law and they cannot be equated with other Government employees. (18) Having regard to the nature of the activities of such undertaking, it was submitted that the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 were squarely applicable. Section 2(b) of the said Act reads : "(b) Newspaper means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news and includes such other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette." (19) The said Act defines newspaper establishment under section 2(d) as an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate. (20) It appears from the materials on record that the wages of the petitioners were fixed under the Art of 1958 by a Wage Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice R. K. Manisana Singh (Retd) and Mr. (20) It appears from the materials on record that the wages of the petitioners were fixed under the Art of 1958 by a Wage Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice R. K. Manisana Singh (Retd) and Mr. Chatterjee claimed that recommendations made were accepted by the Central Government by notification dated 5th December, 2000. (21) It is not in dispute that M/s. Basumati Corporation Ltd. is run with the funds supplied by the State of West Bengal and it functions under the direction issued by the State Government. There is no scope for dispute that both respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 come within the scope and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (22) What had been essentially sought for in the present writ application is the implementation of the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board. Such recommendation was accepted by the Central Government and notified on 25th July, 2000. According to Mrs. Saha, appearing as learned Counsel for the State respondent, the remedy for enforcement of such benefit has been clearly stipulated under sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(3) of the said Act. It was submitted that the grievance, as ventilated in the present application, is covered by subsection (2) of section 17. Mrs. Saha then submitted that the legislative intent is clear and the remedy is available in the Labour Court or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. (23) Challenging the maintainability of the present application, it was submitted by Mrs. Saha that the claim of the writ petitioners relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The said claim is not a claim in common law. It was, thus, submitted that the only remedy available was to get an adjudication under the special remedy as provided in the Act itself. It was then submitted that the petitioners had already availed of the special remedy by way of filing a representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In this context Mrs. Saha invited attention of the Court to the various letters being Memo No. 21/08/02WJ/LC dated 15.7.2003, Memo No. 31/08/02/WJ/LC dated 11.9.2003, Memo No. 11/08/02/WJ/LC dated 29.11.2007. Memo No. 9/08/02/WJ/LC dated 29.6.2007 and letter dated 4.12.2007. In this context Mrs. Saha invited attention of the Court to the various letters being Memo No. 21/08/02WJ/LC dated 15.7.2003, Memo No. 31/08/02/WJ/LC dated 11.9.2003, Memo No. 11/08/02/WJ/LC dated 29.11.2007. Memo No. 9/08/02/WJ/LC dated 29.6.2007 and letter dated 4.12.2007. It was further submitted that the letter dated 11th September, 2003 was addressed to the General Secretary, Basumati Corporation Ltd. Karmachari Union. Mrs. Saha then submitted that in view of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, there could be no reason for entertaining the writ application. It was further submitted that the petitioners in a clandestine manner while allowing the proceedings to continue before the Assistant Labour Commissioner sought for an interim injunction with regard to the same cause of action before this Court. (24) Mr. Chatterjee, as learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, submitted that the locus standi of the writ petitioners cannot be disputed. Since acquisition about 34 years back, all the recommendations of the earlier Wage Boards including a part of the Manisana Singh Wage Board have been implemented by the respondents without ever raising the plea of existence of alternative remedy. The recommendations made by the Wage Board having created a legal right in favour of the petitioners, the same is very much enforceable by issuance of a writ of mandamus. (25) In this context, reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. vs. V. R. Rudani and Ors., as reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 , wherein it had been observed that if the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue, if the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. Once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. (26) Mr. Chatterjee submitted that in order to avail of the remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act, the State is required to make a reference and that having not been done, the doors of the Writ Court cannot be closed. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the respondent N. 4 company was acquired in terms of section 7 of the Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition and Undertaking) Act, 1974. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the respondent N. 4 company was acquired in terms of section 7 of the Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition and Undertaking) Act, 1974. In terms of the preamble of the said Act, the petitioners have the status of State Government employees. It was also contended that in terms of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, the Central Government has the right to enforce the Wage Board Award and the Wage Board Award is, thus, required to be implemented. (27) It is worth mentioning that under Article 226, writs can be issued to any person or authority. It can be issued for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The term authority certainly deserves a liberal interpretation. Article 226, no doubt, confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as other legal rights. It was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. (supra) that "the judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy, which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226." (28) Mr. Chatterjee in course of his submission referred to an unreported decision of this Court in the case between the Calcutta Tram Mazdoor Sabha vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., in W.P. No. 910 of 2006. Mr. Chatterjee then referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., as reported in AIR 1981 SC 746 . This was in support of his contention that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. This was in support of his contention that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. (29) Mr. Chatterjee relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case between State of Maharashtra vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Ors., as reported in 1995(5) SCC 730 , submitted that Article 21 read with Article 39A of the Constitution mandates or casts a duty on the State, which cannot be whittled down in any manner, either by pleading paucity of funds or otherwise. It was also contended that High Court in a fit case can direct the executive to carry out the directive principles and in case of inaction or slow action by the executive. Court can very well interfere. (30) On the other hand, Mrs. Saha on behalf of the State respondent submitted that it is for the Tribunal to adjudicate on the fairness or reasonableness of the recommendation of the Wage Board. It is her consistent stand that this Writ Court will not be justified in entering into the said aspect - more so, when there is need for having due regard to the paying capacity of the establishment. In this context, she referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Employees Union and Ors., as reported in 1978(2) SCC 188 . (31) Deriving support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Basant Kumar Sarkar and Ors. vs. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors., as reported in AIR 1964 SC 1260 , it was submitted that though powers conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 are very wide, even those powers cannot take it within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind as made out in the present case. vs. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and Ors., as reported in AIR 1964 SC 1260 , it was submitted that though powers conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 are very wide, even those powers cannot take it within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind as made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the said case observed that "the legislature evolves a scheme of socio-economic welfare, makes elaborate provisions in respect of it and leaves it to the Government concerned to decide when, how and in what manner the scheme should be introduced." (32) While raising dispute regarding maintainability, Mrs. Saha referred to the decision in the case between Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors., as reported in 1976(1) SCC 496 . The Apex Court in the said case, however, essentially dealt with the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain labour dispute. (33) According to Mrs. Saha, the Writ Courts are generally not expected to interfere in matters having financial implication and in this context she referred to the Apex Court decision in the case between Balco Employees Union (Regd) vs. Union of India and Ors., as reported in 2002(2) SCC 333 . (34) In the case between Management of the Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, A.P. and Anr., as reported in 1973(3) SCC 626 , the Apex Court on examination of the relevant materials concluded that the company being not in a financial position to meet the burden of implementing the recommendation of the Wage Board, the claim for categorization and fitment in accordance therewith could not be accepted. (35) The recommendations of the Wage Board in respect of the Press Trust of India were under scrutiny before the Apex Court in the case between Press Trust of India and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., as reported in 1974(4) SCC 638 . The Apex Court found the same unreasonable and that those are far in excess of what the employees themselves demanded and were beyond the financial capacity of the establishment. (36) So far the maintainability of the present application is concerned, this Court finds it difficult to brush aside the contention as made on behalf of the writ petitioners. Section 7 of the Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974 deals with the employment of certain employees. (36) So far the maintainability of the present application is concerned, this Court finds it difficult to brush aside the contention as made on behalf of the writ petitioners. Section 7 of the Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974 deals with the employment of certain employees. It was categorically mentioned that the employees since acquisition are paid by the Government. While assailing the contention of Mrs. Saha it was submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that Industrial Tribunal could not be the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances of the writ petitioners. He clarified that under the Industrial Disputes Act, reference is required to be made by the State. (37) True, if there is a remedy provided in the Act itself, it would not be proper to invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Ref: K.S. Rashid and Son vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission etc., AIR 1954 SC 207 ). (38) But maintainability and entertainability are not synonymous. Moreover, the role of the Government in a welfare State is fast changing. If law fails to respond to the challenges of time, if it cannot meet the aspirations of the people and if it only looks to the past while expressing its helplessness, the entire justice delivery system would increasingly lose its relevance. It is generally said wherever there is injustice, this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 -of course, subject to the territorial jurisdiction. Hands of law are long and strong enough so as to reach injustice wherever it is. (39) It is not only the right but the duty of the Court to take note of fundamental changes in public perception. It is necessary for the Courts to accept from time to time the challenge and boldly lay down new principles to meet new social problems. (40) This reminds us of Professor T. B. Smith of Edinburgh University who said : "Why should a Court, which in the past clearly refused to be strictly bound by precedent (and has subsequently tied its own hands) not resume the earlier and more equitable practice? It is astonishing to observe the most eminent legal minds of the country reacting to the prison of precedents (of precedents which they recognize as unjust) like a child who has shut himself in a room and screams to be let out presumably by the legislature". It is astonishing to observe the most eminent legal minds of the country reacting to the prison of precedents (of precedents which they recognize as unjust) like a child who has shut himself in a room and screams to be let out presumably by the legislature". (41) Attitude of Lord Denning to precedent can best be summed up in his own words: " Let it not be thought from this discourse that I am against the doctrine of precedent. I am not. It is the foundation of our system of case law. This has evolved by broadening down from precedent to precedent. By standing by previous decisions we have kept the common law on good course. All that I am against is its too strict application, a rigidity which insists that a bad precedent must necessarily be followed. I would treat it as you would a path through the woods. You must follow it certainly, so as to reach your end. But you must not let the path become too overgrown. You must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you find yourself lost in the thickets and the brambles. My plea is simply to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which impede it." (42) Moreover, Lord Halsbury in Quinn vs. Leathern said : "Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but govern and are qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found." (Ref: Quinn vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495 at 506). (43) It is settled law that a case is only authority for what it actually decides. It may also be mentioned that it is not everything said by a judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. In the first place, this status is reserved for his pronouncements on the law, and no disputed point of law is involved in the vast majority of cases that are tried in any year. It may also be mentioned that it is not everything said by a judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. In the first place, this status is reserved for his pronouncements on the law, and no disputed point of law is involved in the vast majority of cases that are tried in any year. The dispute is solely concerned with the facts-"An opinion given in Court, if not necessary to the judgment given of record, but that it might have been as well given if no such, or a contrary had been broachd, is no judicial opinion; but a mere gratis dictum." (Ref; Bole vs. Horton, Vaughan 360 at 382/Precedent in English Law, Cross and Harris, 4th Edition, page-41). (44) In this context, it may be relevant to refer to the views of the Jurist W. Friedmann (Ref: Law in a Changing Society, 2nd Edition): "No contemporary analysis of the rule of law can-ignore the vast expansion of Government functions which has occurred as a result both of the growing complexity of modern life, and of the minimum postulates of social justice which are now part of the established public philosophy in all civilized countries. Five different State functions call for analysis. They result from the activities of the State; first, as Protector: secondly, as Provider; thirdly, as Entrepreneur; fourthly, as Economic Controller; fifthly, as Arbitrator. The State acts first as a Protector. This is its traditional function, and classical liberal thought regards it as the only legitimate function of the State............" (45) Friedmann went a step further and said : "The ideal of social welfare, i.e. of the responsibility of the community for minimum standards of living and protection against the major vicissitudes that would leave the individual - except the fortunate few destitute and degraded,, provided only with the theoretical freedoms of contract, property and trade, is now almost universally accepted." (46) It was further observed : That the content of the rule of law cannot be determined for all time and all circumstances is a matter not for lament but for rejoicing. It would be tragic if the law were so petrified as to be unable to respond to the unending challenge of evolutionary or revolutionary changes in society. To the lawyer, this challenge means that he cannot be content to be a craftsman. It would be tragic if the law were so petrified as to be unable to respond to the unending challenge of evolutionary or revolutionary changes in society. To the lawyer, this challenge means that he cannot be content to be a craftsman. His technical knowledge will supply the tools but it is his sense of responsibility for the society in which he lives that must inspire him to be jurist as well as lawyer." (47) So far the present case is concerned, it may very well be said that the grievances of the writ petitioners are required to be considered in the aforesaid perspective without being fettered by the various precedents. It is true that there cannot be any equality amongst unequals. But the question naturally arises as to whether the said aspect has been analyzed in that context at all or not. The State respondent in its usual manner has sought to take refuge in the claim that the Writ Court cannot issue such a direction, which in effect will impose a huge financial burden on a virtually sinking organization. There may certainly be force in such submission. But at the same time, the Court cannot remain indifferent and cannot keep its doors shut when it is found that such a plea has been raised only in order to avoid the responsibility and while doing so, the State has also acted in a partisan manner. If it is good for one it should be good for all and similarly, if it is bad for one, it should be bad for all. (48) Having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court as referred to earlier, it cannot be disputed that the State has a constitutional obligation towards its citizens and more so, to its employees in order to ensure that a man can live with dignity. And as discussed earlier, such dignity is to be considered in the context of the basic need for proper accommodation, environment, access to health and employment and so on and so forth. (49) Though Mrs. Saha, as learned Counsel for the State respondent, raised many issues in support of her contention that the writ application is not maintainable, I find it difficult to accept the same. Mr. (49) Though Mrs. Saha, as learned Counsel for the State respondent, raised many issues in support of her contention that the writ application is not maintainable, I find it difficult to accept the same. Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioners was quite justified in referring to the fact that the plea of alternative remedy of recovery of dues through the Collector as a land revenue is essentially applicable against private parties. Here in the present case, since the status of the respondent/employer as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution cant be disputed, there can be no reason whatsoever for not entertaining the present application. So far the route to the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, it cannot be denied that this demands a reference and without such a reference before it, the Tribunal cannot have any role to play. (50) In course of submission, reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra). This was in support of the contention that if an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or obligation under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that a Civil Court will have no jurisdiction even to grant a decree of injunction to prevent the threatened injury on account of the alleged breach of contract if the contract is one which is recognized by and enforceable under the Act alone. The said case does not deal with justifiability of entertaining an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. (51) In support of the contention that the right or liability created by a statute which gives special remedy for enforcing the same can only be implemented by the procedure as indicated in the statute itself, Ld. Counsel referred to the decision in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Orissa and Ors., as reported in 1983 (2) SCC 433 , wherein reference was further made to the decision of the House of Lords in Neville vs. London Express Newspapers Ltd., 1919 AC 368. (52) Deriving support from the decision in the case of Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association, as reported in 2004(10) SCC 460, it was submitted by Mr. (52) Deriving support from the decision in the case of Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association, as reported in 2004(10) SCC 460, it was submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the said decision deals with whether the industrial tribunal can adjudicate upon service conditions of employees who are not workmen. (53) Mrs. Saha sought to derive inspiration from the decision of the Apex Court in the case between C.C.T. Orissa and Ors. vs. Indian Explosives Ltd., as reported in 2008(3) SCC 688 , while submitting that entertaining an application despite availability of an alternative remedy may result in violation of judicial discipline. (54) But in view of the discussion as made earlier, I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to shut the doors of the Writ Court -particularly when the kind of alternative remedy available in the facts and circumstances of the case is certainly not to the satisfaction of the writ petitioner nor it can be said to be easily or conveniently available. (55) In factual backdrop of the present case, I do not find that the Tribunal could be appropriate forum for appreciating the grievances of the writ petitioners. (56) It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that once a Wage Board Award is published, it must satisfactorily be implemented. (57) In response to such contention, Mrs. Saha on behalf of the State respondent submitted that the Writ Court cannot make an order, which cannot be implemented. She submitted that the State Government never entered into any agreement to implement the Wage Board Award. According to her, quite unlike Tramways Company, M/s. Basumati Corporation Limited ceased to be in business. It was then submitted that the Wage Board recommendation could not be accepted since its implementation is beyond the financial capacity of the company. (58) It cannot be denied that the financial capacity of the company to pay is the sine qua non for implementation of an award. The Court was reminded time and again that the State had implemented different Wage Board Awards like the Palaker Wage Board and the Bacchawat Wage Board Award from time to time when it was within the capacity of the Government and the Dainik Basumati newspaper was being published. It had been claimed that the employees were given higher grade than what was recommended. Mrs. It had been claimed that the employees were given higher grade than what was recommended. Mrs. Saha contended that the accumulated loss of the company exceed the entire net worth of the company by over 72.67 crores. It is a sick company within the definition of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Outstanding unsecured loan along with interest is Rs. 84.06 crores. The operating loss of the company is Rs.119.66 lakhs for the year 2006-07. It was further contended that at present there is no publication of newspaper and the company only functions as a printing press and that too, in respect of the orders received from the various departments of the Government. (59) Mrs. Saha repeatedly mentioned that the employees of M/s. Basumati Corporation Ltd. are getting substantially higher wages but now, the company had gone into an alarming State and it could not be possible for the State Government to accept the recommendation of the Manisana Wage Board. (60) Deriving inspiration from the various decisions of the Apex Court, it was submitted that it is necessary to first adjudicate on the fairness or reasonableness of the recommendations of the Wage Board. It was categorically submitted that if the recommendation of the Wage Board is beyond the financial capacity of the employer, the same is liable to be struck down. (61) Referring to the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association vs. Textile Labour Association, as reported in AIR 1966 SC 497 , it was submitted that the adjudication need to take into account the problem of additional burden which the wage structure would impose upon the employer. (62) In this context, reference was also made to the various other decisions like Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Employees Union and Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 188 ; Press Trust of India and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1974(4) SCC 638 ; Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 ; Management of the Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, A.P. and Anr., 1973(3) SCC 626 and Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association, 2004 (10) SCC 460. (63) No doubt, there is no escape from reality and the financial position of the employer company has to be taken into consideration. (63) No doubt, there is no escape from reality and the financial position of the employer company has to be taken into consideration. An award passed without considering the companys financial capacity is bad and according to Mrs. Saha, cannot be acted upon. (64) It is worth mentioning that never an attempt was made to give a rosy picture so far the financial condition of the company is concerned and very rightly so. How can it be disputed that the wages cannot be fixed without taking into consideration the capacity of the employer. Much can be said about ideal industrial climate, about the employers responsibility towards the employees interests. But whatever is ideal, may not necessarily be real. (65) In course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the State respondent that the writ petitioners are only a section of the employees, who cannot be said to be representing the cause of all others. It was further mentioned that the employees are by and large satisfied with the salary structure and this is more so, in the context of the miserable financial position. (66) Having regard to the nature of the controversy raised in the writ application and the relief sought for, the role of the State in a fast changing society and the legal position as discussed earlier, I think interests of justice will be best served if a mechanism is evolved - preferably by consensus, so as to deal with the grievances as ventilated in the writ application. The State respondent can very well set up a committee with representatives of the writ petitioners in it and thereafter, may deal with the alleged disparity and discrimination and the claims as made in the writ application. (67) The present application being W.P. No. 1161 of 2007 is disposed of with direction upon the State respondent to set up a committee within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order in the manner as indicated earlier. Such a committee may thereafter deal with the grievances of the writ petitioners - as far as possible, in an amicable manner and submit a report before the State respondent. This may be done within a period of four months from the date of setting up of the said committee. Such a committee may thereafter deal with the grievances of the writ petitioners - as far as possible, in an amicable manner and submit a report before the State respondent. This may be done within a period of four months from the date of setting up of the said committee. The State respondent must thereafter take steps for appropriate implementation of the same and that too, within a period of eight weeks. (68) There is no order as to costs. (69) Xerox certified copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible. Writ application disposed of.