Judgment :- In the first Writ Petition in W.P.No.22043 of 2008, the petitioner is a Trade Union functioning in the various fair price shop run by different Co-operative Societies in Tamil Nadu and its federation of such Unions under the various Co-operative Societies and the prayer made was to challenge the circular issued by the first respondent-Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 19.08.2008. By the impugned circular, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies gave certain guidelines for recovery of amount for the loss caused by the employees working in the fair price shops dealing with the essential commodities. 2. By the impugned circular, it is stated that if there was any loss of the commodities, depending upon the commodity, the rate per kilogram specified, shall be recovered. The amounts to the extent of rate fixed for the fair price items should be retained and the balance amount should be credited to the Government account. Apart from the recovery of loss caused by the employees, necessary disciplinary action should also be taken. It was also indicated that during the audit, if the stocks were found to be in excess of the supply, even for that, action should be initiated against the employees. 3. The first Writ Petition was admitted on 30.09.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted. The interim stay was subsequently allowed to be continued and liberty was given to the Department to file appropriate vacate stay application. Accordingly, the vacate stay application in M.P.No. 1 of 2009 was filed together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 01.12.2008. For the reasons best known, the application was not brought out for any hearing. 4. In the meanwhile, the second Writ Petition in W.P.No.23343 of 2008 came to be filed by one Tamil Nadu Maanila Anna Kuturavu Nayaveelai Kadai Uzhiyargal Sangam, represented by its Secretary. In that Writ Petition, the challenge is to the same circular dated 19.08.2008. That Writ Petition was admitted on 30.09.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the said order has been extended. In the meanwhile, M.P.No.1 of 2009 was filed together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 16.09.2009. 5. In the third Writ Petition inW.P.No.24464 of 2008, the petitioner is a Trade Union working under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation with Registration No. 3166/CNI. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the said order has been extended. In the meanwhile, M.P.No.1 of 2009 was filed together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 16.09.2009. 5. In the third Writ Petition inW.P.No.24464 of 2008, the petitioner is a Trade Union working under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation with Registration No. 3166/CNI. The prayer in the Writ Petition was not only challenging the very similar circular, but also the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.139 Co-operation, Food Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.07.2008 as well as the order dated 01.09.2008, which is a consequential order issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. That Writ Petition was admitted on 07.10.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay and it was directed to continue without specifying any time limit. In the mean while, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2009 together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 18.11.2009. 6. W.P.No.24809 of 2008 is filed by Tamil Nadu Consumer Cooperative Employees Federation, represented by its President, challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.139 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.07.2008. The said Trade Union represented its employees working in various Fair Price Shops given to the Cooperative societies. 7. It must be noted that more or less with a similar prayer, similar trade union filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.16728 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of along with other writ petitions on 26.11.2007. In paragraph 3 and 4, it was observed as follows:- "3. On an omnibus prayer like the present one, this issue cannot be gone into. Insofar as no authority including an adjudicating forum under the Industrial Disputes Act had not gone into the issue as to the justification for making such deductions in case of fair price commodities, the said issue relating to recovery from the employee cannot be decided, that too, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. The connected M.Ps are also dismissed. 4. However, it is open to the petitioner Union to raise an industrial dispute and get the issue adjudicated. Therefore, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. The connected M.Ps are also dismissed. 4. However, it is open to the petitioner Union to raise an industrial dispute and get the issue adjudicated. In the absence of relevant materials, it cannot be decided as to what should be the rate of recovery that could be made in respect of the employees who are engaged in the distribution of fair price commodities." 8. Notwithstanding the earlier dismissal, no trade union raised any dispute pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. On the contrary, taking advantage of the subsequent GO viz., G.O.Ms.No.139 dated 21.07.2008, they have come before this Court once again. Though the writ petitions were filed in the name of the trade union, in none of the writ petitions, the nature of membership held by them was disclosed. It is not clear as to how the trade union can maintain such a writ petition in the absence of any action being initiated by the respective employer including Cooperative Society, District Collect or Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. 9. On the other hand, the present contention was that such a circular was invalid on two grounds. The first ground was Civil Supplies corporation is a separate entity and therefore, they are not bound by the Government order. The second ground was when fair price shop commodities are taken away, the value for the said commodities alone can be levied. It was contended that the price fixed therein is a fancy price and if allowed to be charged, then the workmen will be put to heavy loss. 10. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions for more than one ground. First of all in the earlier order, this Court clearly stated that a dispute will have to be raised in respect of grievance projected by them and only in such an event, the industrial adjudication forum will be in a position to decide what should be the appropriate quantum of loss that should be levied. 11. Very recently, the Supreme Court in issue concerning labour legislation, held that remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act has to be availed before coming to this Court vide judgment reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575 [Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust]. 11. Very recently, the Supreme Court in issue concerning labour legislation, held that remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act has to be availed before coming to this Court vide judgment reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575 [Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust]. In paragraph 14, the Supreme Court observed 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 appellant. 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. However, we may also consider the case on merits." 12. Even otherwise since the petitioners have once again come before this Court with a slightly different relief, without availing the remedy of adjudication forum, the writ petitions are misconceived and clear abuse of process of this Court. 13. The parties who comes to Court must come with clean hands and cannot try to secure orders depending upon the Constitutional Bench. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in 2011 (7) SCC 639 @ 705 & 706 . In Paragraphs 163 to 167, it was held as follows:- "163. Whenever the court comes to the conclusion that the process of the court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim jus ex injuria non oritur means that a right cannot arise out of a wrongdoing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852 ), Noorduddin v. Dr.K.L.Anand ( (1995) 1 SCC 242 ) Ramniklal N.Bhutta v State of Maharashtra ( (1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236 ), Sabia Khan v.State of U.P. ( (1999) 1 SCC 271 ). S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)Ltd. v.State of Bihar ( (2004) 7 SCC 166 and Union of India v.Shantiranjan Sarkar ( (2009) 3 SCC 90 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 575). 164. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity".(Vide Naraindas v. Govt. of M.P. ( (1975) 3 SCC 31 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 727: AIR 1974 SC 1252 ). Advocate General, State of Bihar v.M.P.Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688: AIR 1980 SC 946 and Afzal v.State of Haryana ( (1996) 7 SCC 397 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 424)). 165. In K.D.Sharma v.SAIL ((2008) 12 SCC 481) this Court held that:(SCC p.492, para 34) "34.....Prerogagtive writs.....are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. 165. In K.D.Sharma v.SAIL ((2008) 12 SCC 481) this Court held that:(SCC p.492, para 34) "34.....Prerogagtive writs.....are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim" (emphasis added) 166. While deciding the said case this Court relied upon upon the leading case of R.v.Kensington Income Tax Commissioners ((1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), wherein it had been observed as under (KB p.514) ".....when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an exparte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts -(it says) facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis added) "36....If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone.....The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it". (emphasis supplied) 167. In such a case the person who suppresses the material facts from the court is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi i.e. Suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose, which may amount to fraud." 14. Even otherwise in W.P.No.24464 of 2008, in Ground No.19(b), a ground was raised regarding the application of payment of Wages Act, 1936 to the case on hand. Even otherwise in W.P.No.24464 of 2008, in Ground No.19(b), a ground was raised regarding the application of payment of Wages Act, 1936 to the case on hand. Assuming that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act will apply to the case on hand, the Act in terms of Section 7 authorizes deductions which may be made from wages from employees, which includes deductions for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody, or for loss of money for which he is required to account, where such damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default in terms of Section 7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. 15. The next contention raised was that there is no adequate alternative remedy provided to the workers and therefore, the writ petition came to be filed. This contention is misconceived because already this Court has held that the only remedy open to the workers is to raise an industrial dispute. The Second Schedule prescribed under Section 7 deals with the power of the Labour Courts and the Third Schedule prescribed under Section 7A of the I.D.Act deals with the power of the Industrial Tribunals. Item 1 of Second Schedule clearly speaks about the propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under Standing Order can be gone into by the Labour Court. Similarly, Item No.8 of the Third Schedule provides for Rules of discipline as a ground for referring a dispute for adjudication. Even Item No.I deals with wages payable to the workers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workers have no remedy under law. 16. It must also be noted that the fair price shops run either by Cooperative societies or fair price commodities dealt with by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as a nodal agency is covered by the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act can also be dealt with under the said provision. Hence, it cannot be said that the workers are solely governed by the rules of discipline prescribed by the employer but also they are subject to control under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act can also be dealt with under the said provision. Hence, it cannot be said that the workers are solely governed by the rules of discipline prescribed by the employer but also they are subject to control under the Essential Commodities Act. In the light of these facts and in the absence of the petitioners disclosing their membership and the petitioner not adhering to the earlier direction issued by this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 17. However, this court refrains from going into the merits of the contentions made by the petitioners except to state that such an issue can be gone into only by an industrial adjudication forum. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that charging heavy payment for the loss of commodities was illegal and fixation of the value of rice at the level of 'Grade A' which costs Rs.22/-per kilo is on the higher side, considering the inflation in economy and also the fact that after four years of filing of the writ petition, the rates have already been doubled, it is better that the petitioner do not make such contention while impugning the circular issued by the State. 18. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from raising a dispute and whatever that has been considered herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present writ petitions and it will not bind on the adjudicating forum in case a dispute is raised by the petitioner union. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.