JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. We have heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for Food Corporation of India, Mr. T.R. Mishra, Mr. Shakeel Qureshi & Mr. Bhushan Oza, learned advocates appearing for Kandla Port Workers Union, Union of India and original complainant respectively. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2006 has been filed by Food Corporation of India whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 537 of 2007 has been filed by Union of India. These intra court Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 16.01.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6891 of 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed Union of India to issue appropriate order clarifying that all the 321 employees including all the employees listed in the order of the Industrial Tribunal as having been transferred to Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI) under Section 12A of the FCI Act, 1964 with effect from 01.01.1973. 2.1 The Kandla Port Trust Union - original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as original petitioner Union) had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge praying for a direction that the action of the respondents in not including the names of 306 employees in the impugned order passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Food, Department of Food Procurement and Distribution, New Delhi is void and inoperative. The original petitioner Union had also sought for a direction to the Govt. of India to issue appropriate order clarifying that all the 321 employees (including all employees listed in Annexure C) as having been transferred to Food Corporation of India under Section 12A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 with effect from 01.01.1973. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as pleaded before the learned Single Judge are as follows: 3.1 The members of the original petitioner Union include those employees who were working in the Vacuvator division of the Kandla Port Trust upto 1973 and taken over by the Food Corporation of India with effect from 01.01.1973. Initially, the work of loading and unloading food grains at Kandla Port was undertaken departmentally by the Govt. of India. Initially, the work of loading and unloading food grains at Kandla Port was undertaken departmentally by the Govt. of India. In 1965, the aforesaid work was transferred to Kandla Port Trust which is a body set up under the Kandla Port Trust Act, 1963. An agreement was executed between the Government of India and the Trustees of the Port of Kandla on 08.04.1965 on the question of loading and unloading of food grains at Kandla. It was stated in the said agreement that the Board of Kandla Port Trust was willing to act as an Agent of the Government for the purpose of assembly, operation and maintenance of wheat discharging machines (With Vacuvators) on behalf of the Government of India in connection with discharge of food grains, on vessels arriving at Kandla as and when required by the Government with machines and equipments provided by the Government. It was agreed that the Government of India shall, for the purposes of the aforesaid work supply to the Board 25 Vacuvators of DK-168 type and all ancillary equipments. It was further agreed that the Board on behalf of the Port Trust shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the machines with a view to obtaining the best possible performance. Therefore, for that purpose, the Board would provide adequate number of staff employed for the various stages of operation and of maintenance. It was also agreed that for the purpose of reconciliation of expenditure, the Board shall submit monthly statement together with account of all expenditure in such form and detail. It was further agreed that on conclusion of termination of the agreement, the Board of the Port Trust shall return all the machineries, equipments, and spare parts given to the Board by the Government or purchased by the Board on behalf of the Government in good condition. It was further agreed that the Government shall, at the conclusion or termination of this agreement also take over the staff engaged by the Board for working this agreement. 3.2 The arrangement namely the loading and unloading work carried out by Kandla Port Trust as an Agent of the Government of India continued upto the end of 1972. With effect from 01.01.1973, the aforesaid work was transferred to the Food Corporation of India, a Statutory Corporation set up under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. 3.2 The arrangement namely the loading and unloading work carried out by Kandla Port Trust as an Agent of the Government of India continued upto the end of 1972. With effect from 01.01.1973, the aforesaid work was transferred to the Food Corporation of India, a Statutory Corporation set up under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. As a result thereof, the employees who were working in Vacuvator Division of the Kandla Port Trust were taken over by the Food Corporation of India. On 18.09.1973, an office order was issued by FCI in this context on the question of taking over of the employees of the Kandla Port Trust who were working in the Vacuvator Division. The order provided inter alia that the required employees of the Vacuvator Division of the Kandla Port Trust were taken over as confirmed in the appropriate post indicated against each and would be subject to service conditions of the provisions of the Act and Regulation. The staff was thus taken over with effect from 01.01.1973. Several other provisions concerning service conditions of the staff who were taken over were also contained therein. The said office order was accompanied by a statement showing the names of employees of the Kandla Port Trust Vacuvator Division taken over by FCI as on 01.01.1973. 3.3 However pursuant to the take over of employees by FCI the question about the right of exercise of option in favour of the Central Government pay scale and pensionary benefits etc. was the subject matter of Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI and the workmen (who were represented by respondent no. 1- union) and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the Reference vide its award dated 05.08.1991. The Tribunal directed that 15 employees mentioned therein should be given option in respect of pay and pay scale as provided in certain Circulars of FCI. The Tribunal also granted the demand of the workmen in respect of regularisation of CPF/GPF subscription and contribution from 1965 to March 1973. The dispute referred to the Tribunal was in respect of the employees who were working in the Vacuvator division of the Kandla Port Trust and were transferred to FCI with effect from 01.01.1973. The Tribunal also granted the demand of the workmen in respect of regularisation of CPF/GPF subscription and contribution from 1965 to March 1973. The dispute referred to the Tribunal was in respect of the employees who were working in the Vacuvator division of the Kandla Port Trust and were transferred to FCI with effect from 01.01.1973. 3.4 So far as the question of regularisation of CPF/GPF contribution was concerned, the demand relating to option in the matter of declaration confined to 15 workers. While passing the order, the Tribunal allowed both the demands. However, in the order, the reference was made to 15 employees only. In the operative part, the order in so far as it pertains to option in respect of pay etc. was confined to 15 employees only. It was then provided that the concerned workmen on their transfer to FCI with effect from 01.01.1973 would be entitled to exercise option u/S. 12A (4) of the Act and this part of the order was related to pensionary benefits etc. The award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by FCI by filing Special Civil Application No. 7041 of 1993 before this Court and this Court vide its order and judgment dated 21.09.1994 has dismissed the said Special Civil Application. The matter was taken further to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12630 of 1995 and the said petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.07.1995. Despite the aforesaid position, number of employees had not been given the benefit of Section 12A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and therefore the writ petition was preferred wherein the impugned order was passed. 4. Mr. KM Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is incorporated under the provisions of Food Corporation Act and that in furtherance of its statutory functions it has to employ various staff for performing its functions which may be from other departments of the Government or on contract basis or even on seasonal basis depending on the work and contingencies. 4.1 Mr. Patel submitted that the adjudication proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal were qua 15 workers and the remaining 306 workers though appearing were not granted any relief. 4.1 Mr. Patel submitted that the adjudication proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal were qua 15 workers and the remaining 306 workers though appearing were not granted any relief. He submitted that it amounted to denial or at least no adjudication of any rights qua these 306 workers and therefore no presumption can be drawn that they were in same position as that of 15 workers in whose favour the Tribunal had held. 4.2 Mr. Patel further contended that there was actually no transfer order under Section 12A of the FCI Act but 15 employees were given the benefit due to the award of the Tribunal but the same cannot be treated as statutory transfer under Section 12A of the FCI Act by FCI. 4.3 Mr. Patel has drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement which was entered between Regional Director (Food), Government of India and the Trustees of Port of Kandla on 08.04.1965 and submitted that the original petitioners have based their case on Clause IX of the said agreement. He submitted that in view of the said agreement and the office order at Annexure C to the petition more particularly clauses 1 & 2, the members of the respondent no.1 Union were taken over as regular employees with effect from 01.01.1973 and they were absorbed as employees of FCI. 4.4 Mr. Patel contended that the operative portion of the Tribunals award was only for transfer of 15 employees out of 115 who were applicants before the Tribunal. He submitted that there is no award directing to give option for 306 remaining employees including 100 employees out of 115 petitioners in the Industrial Dispute who were applicants before the Tribunal. 4.5 Mr. Patel contended that unless there is a specific transfer of the concerned employee by the Central Government under Section 12-A of the FCI Act, 1964 or by any other manner, the employees cannot be given benefit or effect of section 12-A. He submitted that the subsequent amendment shall not apply retrospectively in the case of the original petitioners. Mr. Patel further submitted that to avail any statutory right under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is well settled that writ is not the remedy but is to be availed through statutory remedy. 4.6 Mr. Mr. Patel further submitted that to avail any statutory right under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is well settled that writ is not the remedy but is to be availed through statutory remedy. 4.6 Mr. Patel submitted that in fact the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground of delay and latches. He submitted that the transfer was with effect from 1973, the award was passed in the year 1993 and was challenged in the year 2006 before this Court. He submitted that therefore the petition was filed after a gross delay and therefore the same ought not to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that on the principle of waiver and acquiescence, the petition ought to have been dismissed. 4.7 Mr. Patel fairly conceded that the judgment considered in the case of one of the employees of Kandla Port Trust is on identical issue which could not be pointed out before the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in the said matter (Special Civil Application No. 942 of 1979) had held that Section 12A was not attracted in the facts of the said case as it provided for the transfer by the Central Government of the officers or employees serving in the department of the Central Government or the Food Corporation of India and inasmuch as the petitioner therein was not an officer or employee of the Central Government, section 12A was not applicable. The said view was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.1985 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1982. 4.8 In support of his submissions, Mr. Patel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers Union v. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. and Others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 469 ; (ii) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Another v. Jabar Singh and Others reported in 2007-IILLJ 157 : (2007) 2 SCC 112). 5. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 - Union supported the impugned order and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge being in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. 5.1 Mr. 5. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 - Union supported the impugned order and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge being in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. 5.1 Mr. Mishra submitted that all the 321 employees including the 15 employees referred to in the award of the Tribunal have been transferred to FCI and therefore their transfer to FCI was always required to be treated as transferred under Section 12A of FCI Act. He submitted that when the Government has chosen to issue a specific order under Section 12A pertaining to 15 employees there is no just and proper reason as to why the remaining 306 employees were not mentioned in the said order of the Government of India. He submitted that the appellant being an ideal employer ought to have followed the decision of the Tribunal and ought to have given benefit of the award to the remaining employees in its true spirit. He submitted that in fact in pursuance of the taking over, the appellant had stepped into the shoes of Kandla Port Trust and accordingly the benefits ought to have been granted to the employees. Mr. Mishra submitted that non granting of any option to the employees is not only illegal but also arbitrary. 5.2 Mr. Mishra, in order to substantiate his contentions has relied upon the following decisions: (i) State of Gujarat v. Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare & Tribunal Development Dept. & Another reported in 1982(1) GLH 61; (ii) Air India Employees Union & Others v. Air India Limited & Others reported in 2014(1) LLN 364. 6. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 - Union of India submitted that Section 12A of the Act shall be applicable for Central Government employees only and the original petitioners not being Central Government employees cannot be held to be protected under the provisions of Section 12A of the Act. He submitted that these petitioners were not even the regular employees of Kandla Port Trust and therefore they cannot claim benefit of provision of Section 12A of the Act. He submitted that these petitioners were not even the regular employees of Kandla Port Trust and therefore they cannot claim benefit of provision of Section 12A of the Act. He submitted that the original petitioners being work charge employees of Kandla Port Trust cannot claim benefits as conferred to the other 15 employees which was by way of award of the Tribunal and confirmed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 7. Mr. Bhushan Oza, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 3. He submitted that as per the agreement dated 08.04.1965 the entire staff of Kandla Port Trust was taken over by FCI. He submitted that the original petitioners were taken over from Kandla Port Trust and they are also required to be conferred the benefits which were awarded to similarly situated 15 employees pursuant to the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 8. The main plank of the case before us is that the original petitioner Union had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge asserting that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 05.08.1991 requiring FCI to regularise services of 15 workmen should be made applicable to another 315 workers. Firstly, without delving much into the award it can be prima facie said that the Tribunals award refers to only 15 workers and it specifically states that the 15 workers stood transferred to FCI staff and therefore were entitled to be absorbed in FCI staff and the benefits which accrue thereupon in view of section 12 of the Act. A writ petition challenging the said award of the Tribunal being Special Civil Application No. 7041 of 1993 was dismissed so was the Special Leave Petition filed by FCI being SLP(C ) No. 12630 of 1995. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal attained finality qua the 15 workers. 8.1 It has been contended by FCI as well as Union of India that since the workers were freshly appointed by FCI with effect from 01.01.1973, all 321 workers cannot be treated as workers transferred to FCI under section 12A of the Act. It shall be relevant to peruse Section 12A of the FCI Act at this juncture and the same is reproduced hereunder: "12A. It shall be relevant to peruse Section 12A of the FCI Act at this juncture and the same is reproduced hereunder: "12A. Special provisions for transfer of Government employees to the Corporation in certain cases.-----(1) Where the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform any functions which under section 13 are functions of the Corporation, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to transfer, by order and with effect from such date or dates (which may be either retrospective to any date not earlier than the 1st January, 1965, or prospective) as may be specified in the order, to the Corporation any of the officers or employees serving in the Department of the Central Government dealing which food or any of its subordinate or attached offices and engaged in the performance of those functions: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made in relation to any office or employees in such Department or office who has, in respect of the proposal of the Central Government to transfer such office or employee to the Corporation, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Government, his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation. (2) In making an order under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, as far as may be, take into consideration the functions which the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform and the areas in which such functions have been or are performed. (3) An officer or other employee transferred by an order made under sub-section (1) shall, on and from the date of transfer, cease to be an employee of the Central Government and become an employee of the Corporation with such designation as the Corporation may determine and shall, [subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (4A), (4B), (4C), (5) and (6)] be governed by the regulations made by the Corporation under this Act as respects remuneration and other conditions of service including pension, leave and provident fund, and shall continue to be an officer or employee of the Corporation unless and until his employment is terminated by the Corporation. (4) Every officer or other employee transferred by an order made under subsection (1) shall, within six months from the date of transfer, exercise his option in writing to be governed,-- (a) by the scale of pay applicable to the post held by him under the Government immediately before the date of transfer or by the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred. (b) by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time or the leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation under the regulations made by Corporation under this Act, and such option once exercised shall be final: Provided that the option exercised under clause (a) shall be applicable only in respect of the post to which such officer or employee is transferred to the Corporation and on appointment to a higher post under the Corporation, he shall be eligible only for the scale of pay applicable to such higher post: Provided further that if immediately before the date of his transfer any such officer or employee is officiating in a higher post under the Government either in a leave vacancy or in any other vacancy of a specified duration, his pay, on transfer, shall be protected for the unexpired period of such vacancy and thereafter he shall be entitled to the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Government to which he would have reverted or to the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred, whichever he may opt: Provided also that when an officer or other employee serving in the Department of the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with food or in any of its attached or subordinate offices is promoted to officiate in a higher post in the Department or office subsequent to the transfer to the Corporation of any other officer or employee senior to him in that Department or office before such transfer, the officer or other employee who is promoted to officiate in such higher post shall, on transfer to the Corporation, be entitled only to the scale of pay applicable to the post he would have held but for such promotion or the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred, whichever he may opt. [4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (4),--- (a) every officer or other employee in respect of whom an order of transfer under sub-section (1) had been made before the date of commencement of the Food Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1977 (hereafter in this section referred to as the appointed day) shall, whether or not he had exercised the option under sub-section (4) before the appointed day, exercise such option within six months from the appointed day; and (b) every officer or other employee in respect of whom an order of transfer under sub-section 1) may be made after the appointed day shall, within six months from the date or such order, exercise his option under sub-section (4), and in each such option once exercise shall be final: Provided that where an officer or other employee having exercised an option under subsection (4) before the appointed day---- (i) has died or retired before the appointed day, or dies or retires after the appointed day, before exercising the option as required by this sub-section, or (ii) does not exercise the option as required by this sub-section, the option already exercised by him shall be deemed to have been validity exercised by him under sub-section (4). (4B) Where an office or other employee (a) has dies or retired, or dies or retires, after an order of transfer under sub-section (1) in respect of such officer or other employee is made but before exercising the option under sub-section (4) or, as the case may be, as required by sub-section (4A); or (b) has died or retired, or dies or retires, before an order of transfer under sub-section (1) in respect of such officer or other employee is made. He shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4) or sub-section (4A),-- (i) in a case falling under clause (a), be deemed to have exercised an option under sub-section (4); and (ii) in a case falling under clause (b), be deemed to have been transferred under subsection (1) and exercised and option under sub-section (4), to be governed by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time. Provided that nothing in clause (a) of this subsection shall apply to an officer or other employee who has, before the appointed day, been paid the terminal benefits as admissible to the employees of the Corporation under the regulations made by the Corporation under this Act, unless such officer or other employee refunds in a lump sum within six months from the appointed day the amount of contributions made by the Corporation towards such terminal benefits: Provided further that nothing in clause (v) of this sub-section shall apply to an officer or other employee who has intimated, under the proviso to sub-section (1), his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation. (4C) Where an officer or other employee has exercised an option under sub-section (4), or exercises, or is deemed to have exercised, an option under that sub-section, read with subsection (4A) or sub-section (4B), to be governed by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central Government, such benefits shall be calculated on the basis of the pay and allowances drawn by him in the Corporation.} (5) No officer or other employee transferred by an order made under subsection(1). (a) shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that competent to make a similar or equivalent appoint under the Corporation as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation under this Act; [(b) Shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, [Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed] [Provided further that this clause shall not apply,-- (i) where an officer or employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer or employee or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (iii) to an officer or employee who, after transfer to the Corporation, is appointed to a higher post under the Corporation in response to an open advertisement and in competition with outsiders. (6) If, in respect of any such officer or employee as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonable practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in sub-section (5), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove him or to reduce him in rank shall be final. (7) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the members of the Central Secretariat Service or any other service or to persons on deputation to the Department referred to in that sub-section or to any of its attached or subordinate officers from any Ministry of the Central Government or from any State Government or from any organization." 8.2 It appears from the record that the Food Corporation Act, 1964 as it was originally enacted did not envisage transfer of Government staff to the appellant - Corporation. The transfer of the staff was proposed to be regulated by issuance of executive orders safeguarding their conditions of service, etc. The transfer of the staff was proposed to be regulated by issuance of executive orders safeguarding their conditions of service, etc. Section 12A seems to have been incorporated in the original Act by amendment in 1965 and thereafter in the year 1971. From the Act itself it is clear that the Central Government has to first issue an order transferring employees to the appellant Corporation. 8.3 In the present case the employees who were engaged by the Kandla Port Trust (Board) were taken over by the appellant with effect from 01.01.1973 subject to the conditions that they would be governed by service conditions i.e. leave, probation, disciplinary action etc as per FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971. Such benefits were, however, extended to only permanent employees of the Trust and not to the work charge employees. This is evident from the office order dated 18.08.1973. 8.4 However, the employees who were working as work charge employees were taken over as regular employees with effect from 01.01.1973 and were extended benefits qua leave, probation, disciplinary action etc. in accordance with the provisions of FCI(staff) Regulation, 1971. The Office Order specifically provides that the said employees were work charge employees and that they would be eligible for next increment in the said scale on 01.01.1974 subject to the conditions regulating grant of increments. 8.5 It is an admitted position that pursuant to the agreement which took place on 08.04.1965 the original petitioners who were work charge employees of the Trust were taken over by the appellant Corporation. It is required to be borne in mind that had the members of the original petitioner union not opted for a take over, they would have been retrenched from the services of the Trust being work charge employees. Therefore, these employees have accepted the benefit flowing from the agreement. In our view a perusal of Clauses 11, 13 & 14 of the said agreement clearly lays down that these employees are required to be employed afresh with effect from 01.01.1973 and subsequently clauses 1, 2, 5 & 8 of the office also lay down that the pension scheme of these employees was converted to CPF from GPF. The said employees ought to have conveyed their objections at the relevant time i.e. in 1973. The challenge to the same was done only in the year 1996. This action of the employees is barred by gross delay and latches. The said employees ought to have conveyed their objections at the relevant time i.e. in 1973. The challenge to the same was done only in the year 1996. This action of the employees is barred by gross delay and latches. 9. It shall be relevant for us refer to the decision in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Another (supra) wherein paras 43 & 44 read as under: "43. We are unable to countenance the above submission of Mr. Mehta and Mr. Sangal insofar as it relates to the non-maintainability of the writ petition and the delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the effective alternative remedy was not availed by many of the workmen as detailed in paragraphs supra. The termination order was made in the year 1995 and the writ petitions were admittedly filed in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 years. The High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in entertaining the writ petition on the ground that the petition has been filed after a delay of 10 years and that the writ petitions should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of laches. We have already referred to the decision of this Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr, (supra). This Court speaking through Arijit Pasyat, J. has held in categorical terms that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 44. In the instant case, the workmen have not made out any exceptional circumstances to knock the door of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. But the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and a specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. There are several decisions to the same effect. The respondents have not made out any strong case for making a departure. Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition." 9.1 Similarly, in the case of T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. There are several decisions to the same effect. The respondents have not made out any strong case for making a departure. Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition." 9.1 Similarly, in the case of T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers Union (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "7. The Division Bench held that the questions raised, by the Appellants herein, in that Appeal were the same which were pending in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent against the Orders made by the Inspector of Labour. The Division Bench held that the Union had to await the final outcome of those Writ Petitions. The Division Bench also agreed with the conclusion of the Single Judge that since the services of the employees had been terminated, it was for the employees to seek their remedies in a manner known to law. We find no infirmity with the reasoning of the Division Bench and see no reason to interfere." 10. The decisions cited by learned advocates for the respondents are also required to be perused against the ones noted here-in-above. Accordingly, paras 22 & 24 of the decision in the case of Air India Employees Union & Others (supra) read as under: "(22) The respondents also submitted that the settlement/ award was arrived at not between the transferee entity - Air India Limited but by its predecessor and the petitioner unions. Consequently, such a settlement/award is not binding upon the transferee entity - Air India Limited. We find that a complete answer to the above submission is provided under Section 18(3) (c) of the I.D. Act which inter alia provides that when settlement has been arrived at between the employer and its workmen, the same shall be binding not only on all the parties to the dispute but also upon the heirs and successor of the employers i.e. erstwhile Air India Limited and Indian Airlines Limited in this case. In view of the above, the transferee entity Air India Limited would continue to be bound by the settlement/award arrived at between its predecessor Air India Limited and Indian Airlines Limited with the petitioner-unions. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the above submissions. In view of the above, the transferee entity Air India Limited would continue to be bound by the settlement/award arrived at between its predecessor Air India Limited and Indian Airlines Limited with the petitioner-unions. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the above submissions. (24) In view of the above, we are of the view that notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act should be given by Air India Limited to the petitioner unions of the change in conditions of service in the prescribed manner. Thereafter, it is for the unions to accept the same or agitate in respect thereof by raising a dispute. In case a dispute is raised, which seems likely, the same would be resolved under the I.D. Act on its merits. However, the above issue to be resolved may take some time. Therefore, the issue to be considered is what relief, if any, is to be granted in the meantime. We have noted the fact that the merged entity Air India Limited would possibly be wound up unless further funds to the extent of Rs.49,120 crores are infused. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar condition of Air India Limited and also the desire of Unions to reach an amicable settlement and not to adopt an attitude which would result in the transferee entity Air India Limited being wound up and the workmen losing their jobs, it would be in the fitness of things that pending the resolution of the dispute by the Industrial Tribunal or earlier the petitioners workmen would be entitled to receive and would continue to have the same service benefits i. e. emoluments etc. as is being received by them today. This position would continue till the resolution of the likely dispute, if raised by the Workmen-Unions on the service of notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act." 10.1 Similarly in the case of Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare & Tribunal Development Dept. as is being received by them today. This position would continue till the resolution of the likely dispute, if raised by the Workmen-Unions on the service of notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act." 10.1 Similarly in the case of Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare & Tribunal Development Dept. & Another (supra), this Court has held as under: "From these four decisions, the following propositions emerge: (1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but it law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and tribunals in the State; (2) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceedings or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding; (3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971." 11. Going by the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered view that there is a gross delay in raising the dispute before the learned Single Judge and therefore without availing the effective alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, the original petitioner approached this Court after a delay of about 33 years which is beyond explanation. The decisions relied upon by the respondents shall not be applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare & Tribunal Development Dept. & Another (supra), the law was laid down by the High Court whereas in the present case the Tribunal has passed the award in favour of only 15 employees though the remaining employees were party to the proceedings. In the case of Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare & Tribunal Development Dept. & Another (supra), the law was laid down by the High Court whereas in the present case the Tribunal has passed the award in favour of only 15 employees though the remaining employees were party to the proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Air India Employees Union (supra) it is held that when settlement has been arrived at between the employer and its workmen, the same shall be binding not only on all the parties to the dispute but also upon the heirs and successor of the employers but in the present case the remaining workers were already party to the dispute but they were not given the benefit of the award at the relevant time. 11.1 Even otherwise, the members of original petitioner union are not governed by Section 12A of the FCI Act inasmuch as the same is for Central Government employees. The section relates to transfer of employees from other Central Government offices to FCI who shall be governed by the rules and regulations of FCI. Moreover, the work-charge employees at the then time had also signed General Conditions for employment with their erstwhile employer which specified that they would not claim pension or gratuity as extended to permanent employees. Therefore, when these employees are taken over by the FCI with effect from 01.01.1973 it shall not be appropriate on their part to claim such benefits which accrue prior to 1973 not in their favour. In fact the office order dated 18.09.1973 issued pursuant to the agreement, more particularly clause 8 states as under: "8. The employees now taken over would be governed by the Food Corporation of India CPF regulations. The balances at their credit in their Fund Accounts with the K.P.T will be transferred to their new account in the Corporation. The balance so taken over will thereafter be also subject to the Food Corporation of India C.P.F regulations." 11.2 The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has mainly relied upon the award passed by the Tribunal and has based conclusion on the basis of the benefit conferred to the 15 employees who were regular employees of KPT. The balance so taken over will thereafter be also subject to the Food Corporation of India C.P.F regulations." 11.2 The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has mainly relied upon the award passed by the Tribunal and has based conclusion on the basis of the benefit conferred to the 15 employees who were regular employees of KPT. The operative portion of the award was very clear that the benefit shall be conferred to only 15 regular employees of the Port Trust and not other work charge employees who were party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 12. Assuming without admitting that some of the employees out of 15 who were given the benefit by the Tribunal were work charge employees and not regular employees of the Port Trust, the aggrieved employees who were not conferred the benefits ought to have approached this Court at the relevant time. Therefore, the principles of waiver and acquiescence come into play. In our view the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in passing the impugned order and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 16.01.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6891 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, while reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge we think it fit to observe that the members of the petitioner union are required to be given the benefit of previous service if they make a declaration that there are not paid gratuity by KPT at the time of taking over. In the event such details such as date of joining KPT etc. are given by the employees to the appellant Corporation, the appellant Corporation shall make payment of gratuity for earlier service as if they were employees of the appellant Corporation and shall be treated as employees of FCI for all purposes. Such declaration and details shall be given by the employees to the appellant Corporation within a period of three months from today failing which FCI shall not be liable to make payment of gratuity to the said employees. Such declaration and details shall be given by the employees to the appellant Corporation within a period of three months from today failing which FCI shall not be liable to make payment of gratuity to the said employees. FCI, in turn, on receiving the applications shall make payment of gratuity within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such application, failing which, statutory interest at the rate of 10% shall be applicable on the amount from the date of application till retirement. It shall be open to the appellant Corporation to get reimbursement of the same either from KPT or from the Central Government. Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Letters Patent Appeal allowed.