Judgment R. N. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 9-5-1995, Annexure-9, passed by respondent No 3, dismissing the petitioner from service 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was an employee of the Bihar State co-operative Milk Producers Federation ltd Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the COMPFED) She was posted at the relevant time in the office of Dugdh Utpadak Sehri Singh Ltd barauni The respondent No 3 was annoyed with the petitioner She and her husband also filed representation before the Managing Director, (COMPFED), patna requesting him to transfer from barauni to any other place The respondent No 3 insulted her The farmers also filed petition to the aforesaid effect A charge-sheet, Annexure-7, was furnished to the petitioner on 7-4-1995 directing her to file show caruse as to why she be not dismissed from srevice the petitioner on receipt of the chargesheet filed show cause denying the charges levelled against her and stating that charges have been levelled with baised view in order to discharge her from the service On filing of the show cause the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 9-5-1995, Annexure-9 the said order is under challenge in this writ application 3. On 16-1-1996 a letter was produced by the respondents to show that Industrial dispute has been raised by the union of the petitioner against the order of dismissal The case was ajourned for filing affidavit by the petitioner in reply A supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating therein that Industrial dispute has been raised by the union before the Joint labour Commissioner, Bihar, but as yet neither any reference has been made to an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute, nor has been any progress in the conciliation proceeding 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising preliminary objection that the writ application is not maintainable as the COMPFED is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has accepted in the supplementary affidavit that industrial dispute has been raised by the union of the petitioner before the joint Labour Commissioner The Conciliation proceeding has failed and the matter is pending for reference A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed stating therein that the dispute has been referred to the Labour court under Sec.10 (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the matter is pending for adjudication before the labour Court 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because a dispute has been raised and the same has been referred to a Labour court it cannot be held that the writ petition is not maintainable He says that since there is violation of principle of natural justice in passing the order impugned , the writ petition is maintainable On the another hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no violation of principle of natural justice Charge was framed and furnished to the petitioner She also filed show cause and considering the show cause impugned order has been passed In the circumstances, since the dispute has been referred to the Labour court, this writ petition is not maintainable 6. Undisputedly the petitioner was an employee of COMPFED and at the relevant time she was posted at Barauni the allegation of the petitioner is that the Managing Director respondent No.3 was biased with the petitioner. Charge-sheet was served to the petitioner directing her to file show cause as to why she be not removed from service. The petitioner also filed show cause denying the charge levelled against her and stating that the charges have been framed out of malice and bias. After filing of the show cause the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been passed. While the writ petition was pending the dispute was raised by the union of the petitioner and the same has been referred to the labour Court for adjudication are not in dispute. The question arises for determination whether in such circumstances the writ petition should be entertaind or not. While the writ petition was pending the dispute was raised by the union of the petitioner and the same has been referred to the labour Court for adjudication are not in dispute. The question arises for determination whether in such circumstances the writ petition should be entertaind or not. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner even though the dispute has been referred to the Labour Court under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and is pending for adjudication this writ petition is maintainable. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon a decision in the case of state of U. P. V/s. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 86. In the said case the respondent was dismissed from the service. He preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. He also filed a revision which was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 22-4-1950. He thereafter having exhausted all his remedy under the Police Act filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the authorities concerned raising a question that the Superintendent of Police who presided over the trial/departmental enquiry has become disqualified for holding trial as he himself gave evidence in the proceeding. The High Court quashed the proceeding and set aside the orders passed by the authorities. The Apex Court while dealing with the matter in the circumstances held that: - "if an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior Courts sense of fair play the superior Court may, we think, quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the Court or tribunal of first instance even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned" 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in the case of Balo Rai and others V/s. The state of Bihar and others, 1996 (2) PLJR 139 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in the case of Balo Rai and others V/s. The state of Bihar and others, 1996 (2) PLJR 139 . In the said case question was involved for payment of equal pay for a equal work to the regular workers. The court held that dispute may have flavour of industrial dispute but the right of equal treatment which the petitioner are seeking is not a right or an obligation created under the industrial dispute but a right recognised under our natural chapter. Therefore, the doors of this Court cannot be shut to these petitioners. 9. It is not in dispute that availability of alternative remedy does not always come in the way of entertaining a writ petition. A writ petition can be entertained in a case where there is violation of principle of natural justice or against the order wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction. 10. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the charge was furnished to the petitioner directing her to file show cause as to why she be not dismissed from service. She filed show cause denying the charges framed against her and stated that charge has been framed out of bias and malice. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner is governed by bihar State Co- operative Milk producers Federation Ltd. Service Rule, 1984. The rule in this regard is in unambiguous terms and it says that an employee concerned shall be communicated in writing the charge or charges. The employee charged shall be required to show cause in his defence and to state whether he desires oral enquiry or to be heard in person, or both. The authority imposing any punishment may itself enquire into and if necessary may appoint an enquiry officer for the purpose. In the instant case the petitioner did not mention in her show cause that she desired oral enquiry or to be heard in person or both. The petitioner in her show cause simply denied the charges and stated that charges had been framed against her out of bias and malice. The authority concerned considering the show cause passed order dismissing her from the service. The petitioner in her show cause simply denied the charges and stated that charges had been framed against her out of bias and malice. The authority concerned considering the show cause passed order dismissing her from the service. The learned Counsel in the circumstance could not be able to make out a case that the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order impugned violating the principles of natural justice. The decision in the case of State of U. P. V/s. Mohammad Nooh (supra) does not stand for her rescue in the fact and circumstances of this case. 11. Besides as stated above it is evident in the instant case that the dispute has already been referred to the Labour court under Sec.10 of the Industrial dispute Act and is pending for adjudication. It is not a case where alternative remedy is yet to be involved rather in fact the alternative remedy i. e. reference of the dispute has already been made and is pending for disposal. The decision in the case of Balo Rai and ors. V/s. State of Bihar (supra) wherein it has been held that right of equal treatment is not an obligation created under the Industrial Dispute Act but a right recognised under the National Character has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the Industrial Dispute Act itself provision has been made for reference for adjudication of such dispute. In the case of dinesh Prasad and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. , 1984 PLJR 1002 , a Full Bench of this Court has held that statutory reference under Sec.10 is an adequate and efficacious remedy. The suitors must, therefore, exhaust the remedies under the Act before seeking relief in the writ jurisdiction unless the monstrocity of situation or other exceptional circumstances calls for interference by the writ Court. It is pertinent to mention herein that nothing exceptional circumstances were pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for entertaining the writ petition in the circumstances when the dispute has already been referred to the labour Court and is pending for disposal. 12. Thus on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 12. Thus on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, this order will not prejudice the case of the parties in adjudication of dispute pending before the Labour Court. Application Dismissed.