ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pramendra Pratap Singh, for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Aditiya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned ASGI who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the orders dated 16.08.2018 and 01.10.2018 passed by respondent No. 4 Bank, by which it has expressed its proposal to engage respondent no. 4 as service provider for providing manpower for housekeeping and cleaning work at the various branches and offices of the bank for a period of maximum six months with effect from 01.09.2018. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is a Union of Class IV employees in the bank that it had approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner through its President Shri Lallan Shukla earlier and the bank had entered into an agreement with petitioner no. 1 on 29.05.2018 to engage workers of the petitioner no. 1 only on minimum wages as prescribed by the Government of U.P. for un-skilled workers. 4. This agreement was in terms of the relevant notification dated 28.03.2018 with regard to unskilled workers engaged in commercial establishment. When the petitioners found that the bank was not adhering to the terms of the agreement dated 29.05.2018, it filed a CP Case u/s 10(2) of the Central Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 read with Rule 3 of the Central Industrial Dispute Rules 1957. A copy of the CPC- application filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. 5. This CP case was filed on 09.07.2018 and notice was issued on 19.07.2018 to the Chairman of the bank to submit its reply. A reference has been made in this notice to Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 that provides for proceedings before the Conciliation Officer in respect of an industrial dispute or any matter connected with the dispute relating to the conditions of service of the workmen of the establishment. In pursuance of the notice issued, the bank has also submitted its reply on 13.09.2018 saying that the settlement arrived at had already been implemented by the bank and the notice be withdrawn. 6. In pursuance of the notice issued, the bank has also submitted its reply on 13.09.2018 saying that the settlement arrived at had already been implemented by the bank and the notice be withdrawn. 6. During the pendency of such dispute, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) had also written to the Chairman of the Bank on 19.07.2018 drawing his attention towards sections 17, 18 & 29 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the allegation of the petitioner no. 1 that they had failed to implement the settlement entered into between the parties. It has been submitted that the bank, however, disregarded such notice/letter and has proceeded to finalize the contract with the respondent no. 5 with an intent to oust the petitioner no. 1 and its members from work at the bank in terms of settlement. As a consequence thereof, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Allahabad on 03.10.2018 has also written to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Kanpur for a proposal of prosecution against the Chairman of the bank, Shri Avanindra Kumar Sinha. A copy of such letter dated 03.10.2018 has been filed as Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition. 7. It has been submitted by Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that despite pendency of conciliation proceedings initiated by filing CP Case on 9.07.2018, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court as the Bank by the impugned proposal is attempting to oust the petitioners and change the conditions of service by entering into contract with respondent no. 5. This Court, therefore, should interfere in the matter. 8. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the bank, however, has pointed out that it is apparent from a bare perusal of the agreement dated 29.05.2018 that although the petitioner no. 1 was pressing for several reliefs, it has restricted its demand only one clause is the agreement that if and when the members of the petitioner no. 1 shall be engaged, they shall be engaged on minimum wages as prescribed by Government of U.P. for employment of unskilled labour. Therefore, there is no agreement except the one agreement entered into amongst the parties and there is no doubt that as and when the members of the petitioners shall be engaged, they shall be given the minimum wages as per notification issued from time to time by the Govt. of U.P. in this regard. Therefore, there is no agreement except the one agreement entered into amongst the parties and there is no doubt that as and when the members of the petitioners shall be engaged, they shall be given the minimum wages as per notification issued from time to time by the Govt. of U.P. in this regard. It is not the case of the petitioners that despite such agreement, the members of the petitioner no. 1 are being given less wages. 9. Learned counsel for the bank has also pointed out from the prayer clause of the settlement filed by the petitioner no. 1 in CP Case, that it is apparent that the petitioner no. 1 has prayed for grant of minimum wages in terms of the settlement and has also prayed for a direction prohibiting the respondent bank from changing the service conditions of the members of the petitioner no. 1 by engaging Service Provider and taking work from outsourcing. Hence, the matter of taking work from outsourcing is still pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), where the C.P. Case is pending. The Bank had already filed its written statement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that as and when the members of the petitioner no. 1 are engaged they shall be given the minimum wages as prescribed and they will strictly comply with the agreement entered into between the parties. 10. With regard to the claim of the petitioners that the respondents are violating the agreement by engaging manpower through out sources- service provider, the dispute is yet to be adjudicated by the statutory authority under the Act. The petitioners' case is before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to be decided by him finally but for grant of an interim direction the petitioners are pressing this writ petition before this Court. It has also been submitted that this Court may not interfere at the interim stage. Let the matter be decided by respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that after the agreement was signed between the parties on 29.5.2018, the wages as prescribed in the Govt. of U.P. Notification dated 28.3.2018 have still not been given to the members of the Union and they are still working as on date doing housekeeping and cleaning work in other branches of the bank, therefore, this Court should interfere in the matter. 12. of U.P. Notification dated 28.3.2018 have still not been given to the members of the Union and they are still working as on date doing housekeeping and cleaning work in other branches of the bank, therefore, this Court should interfere in the matter. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further says that Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition have not been challenged before the respondent No. 3 by respondent no. 1, therefore, this Court should look into the matter as the respondent no. 4 is resorting to unfair labour practice. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable at the interim stage. Whatever the petitioners have alleged against the respondent no. 4 is already being looked into by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. 14. In so far as the submission of the petitioners is concerned that the bank is resorting to unfair labour practice, the same can be looked into by the respondent no. 3, if when such grievance is raised before the respondent no. 3 by the petitioners. 15. At the end, during the course of dictation of this order, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that annexure nos. 1 and 2 have been issued in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds from a bare perusal of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that it guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to all persons within the territories of India and Article 16 guarantees equal treatment in so far as employment under the State or its instrumentalities is concerned. However, in this case, the petitioners have raised a grievance regarding unfair labour practice and have also alleged violation of Sections 17, 19 and 21 of the Central Industrial Dispute Act. 16. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 , if a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of first. 16. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 , if a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of first. In such matters the High Courts have limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. The writ petition is dismissed.