KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.- This judgment will also dispose of writ petitions No. 14694, 14696, 14704, 14705, 14706 and 14707 of 1996 as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. 1n all these cases each of the petitioners was appointed temporarily vide appointment order dated 17. 04.1995 for period of one year from the date of completion of training. The training is claimed to have been completed on 20.04.1996, On 17.5.1996 or there about a show cause notice was issued to each of the petitioners to explain as to why the appointment be not recalled on the ground that the same was procured under bogus and forged order. Reply to the same was submitted and thereafter no further departmental action was taken. However, in each of the cases the petitioners approached the National Industrial Relations Commission against the issue of show cause notice on the ground that this amounted to unfair labour practice. Although the National Industrial Relations Commission did pass some interim order but it is claimed that the respondents have with held the salary from April, 1996 onwards and these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution have been filed in this Court for a mandamus to the respondents to pay the monthly salary.
3. Admittedly, the substance of the controversy is pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The question pay is incidental and can with equal competence be agitated before the same forum. Litigating in piecemeal manner is not permissible. Each of the petitioners is left to approach the National Industrial Relations Commission for the release of the salary and it is only thereafter that the petitioners can legitimately invoke the jurisdiction of this Court subject to law and just exceptions. I, therefore, decline to proceed further and dismisss each of the petitions without any order to costs, leaving the petitioner to approach the National Industrial Relations Commission for the relief sought] in there petitions, subject to law and if so advised.