Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions, are the employees of the second respondent company. The second respondent is the private owned finance company. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the second respondent Management. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed the petitioners that the engagement of the petitioners was purely temporary and extended their engagement by further period of 2 months and during the said period, the petitioners have been paid additional compensatory allowance. 2. The contention of the petitioners was that the said action taken by the second respondent was illegal and amounting to unfair labour practices as per Item 7 of Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute relating to minimum wages is pending before the first respondent and if any transfer is made by the second respondent, it will defeat their right to get minimum wages. In this regard, a reference was also made in the judgment of the Division Bench in T.Chandrasekaran v. the Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust and others in 1989-I-LLJ-294. 3. When the matter came up on 16.7.2003, this court directed the matters to be posted along with connected W.P.No.15316 of 2003. Pursuant to the same, the Registry has put a note that the said writ petition has already been disposed of on 12.8.2003. 4. In the writ petitions, no notice was ordered to the respondents. However, Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent. In view of the issue involved in the matters, it is unnecessary to order notice to the second respondent. 5. However, when the matter came up on 25.4.2011, Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners informed that he is no longer appeared for the petitioners as the petitioners have taken away the bundles along with change of vakalat without any further instructions. Hence, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioners. Accordingly, the name of the petitioners appear in the cause list today. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent is the private employer and "not the State" as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The contention of unfair labour practices under the provisions of Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act will not give cause of action for filing writ petitions before this Court. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent is the private employer and "not the State" as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The contention of unfair labour practices under the provisions of Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act will not give cause of action for filing writ petitions before this Court. The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provides adequate remedy for challenging any action taken by the employer. It is not the case, where the service conditions of the petitioners, have been affected during pendency of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer so as to attract the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. On the other hand, the first respondent has been made as a party to the writ petitions, only because the petitioners have made claim for minimum wages. That claim cannot be rejected, if the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits as per the Minimum Wages Act. In the absence of any statutory obligation imposed on the second respondent and in view of the fact that the petitioners have adequate remedy in terms of Labour Act including Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2011) 2 SCC 575 (Transport and Dock Workers Union and others v. Mumbai Port Trust and another), wherein the Supreme Court has in para 14 held as follows: 14. In our opinion, the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellants. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. 7. In the light of the same, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.