JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioners, Workers' Unions of the Ordnance Factory at Badmal in the district of Balangir, have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash Annexures-6 and 7. Which are nothing but the result of the election to the Works' Committee held on 17-2-1998 and the notification declaring the elected candidates to represent the Works Committee for the years 1998-2000. 2. The sum and substance of the allegation of the Petitioners is that the election has not been conducted in the manner so prescribed, and as such, the election of the candidates to the Works Committee is illegal and has been done in violation of the statutory provisions. The Petitioners, therefore', pray for quashing the aforesaid annexures. 3. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the election was conducted in a fair manner adhering to the statutory provisions. Hence, there is no illegality either in the process of conducting the election or in the counting of ballots, as alleged by the Petitioners. The opposite parties further stated that the allegations of the Petitioners are without any basis and require no interference by this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The further case of the opposite parties is that the statute governing the field is the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (in short, 'the 1957 Rules') and there is no violation of the said Rules during the entire electoral process. 4. Rule 46 of the 1957 Rules provides for the procedures for election. Rule 49 lays down the procedures for voting in election and the most relevant rule is Rule 57, which empowers the Central Government to dissolve the Works Committee. Rule 57 lays down as follows: 57. 4. Rule 46 of the 1957 Rules provides for the procedures for election. Rule 49 lays down the procedures for voting in election and the most relevant rule is Rule 57, which empowers the Central Government to dissolve the Works Committee. Rule 57 lays down as follows: 57. Dissolution of Works Committee-The Central Government, or where the power u/s 3 has been delegated to any officer, or authority u/s 39 such officer or authority may, after making such inquiry as it or he may deem fit, dissolve any Works Committee at any time, by an order in writing, if he or it is satisfied that the Committee has not been constituted in accordance with these rules or that not less than two-.thirds of the number of representatives of the workmen have' without any reasonable justification failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Committee or that the 'Committee has, for any other reason,.ceased to function: Provided that where a Works Committee is dissolved under this rule the employer may, and if so required by the Central Government or, as the case may be, by such officer or authority, shall take steps to re-constitute the Committee in accordance with these rules, 5. On a reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it transpires that and officer of Central Government or any officer or authority so empowered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after making enquiry, can dissolve any Works Committee at any time if he is satisfied that the Committee has not been constituted in accordance with the 1957 Rules. Here, the officer so empowered by virtue of delegation u/s 3 read with Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act is the labour Commissioner (Central). The allegation of the Petitioners is that the Works Committee has not been constituted in accordance with the statutory provisions for various reasons stated in the body of the writ petition. There is a clear statutory provision to take care of such an exigency. This being the position, it will not be proper to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and permit the machinary created by the statute to be by passed. In addition there is nothing in the writ petition to indicate that any constitutional or statutory right of the Petitioner has been infringed by the order of any authority so that interference is necessary under the extraordinary jurisdiction. In addition there is nothing in the writ petition to indicate that any constitutional or statutory right of the Petitioner has been infringed by the order of any authority so that interference is necessary under the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the reasons stilted above, the alternative prayer of the Petitioners that since the life of the Committee is only two years and in the meantime one and half years have elapsed and remedy of civil court being not efficacious, interference of this Court is necessary, cannot be accepted. 6. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed. No cost. A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 7. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed