Judgment BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notification Annexure P/7 passed by the Manager (Personnel), Laxmi vilas Palace Hotel, Udaipur, whereby the employees were informed that from their salaries the amount payable to E. S. I, contribution would be deducted. The petitioner impugns this notification on the ground that the E. S. I. Act is not applicable to them in view of the proviso to Section 1 (4) of the E. S. I. Act because the respondent Hotel is an agency of the Government and the government owns a major part of it. ( 2 ) THE respondent E. S. I. Corporation has put in appearance and contested the writ petition. The stand of the E. S. I. Corporation is that Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel is not government. In the alternative even if it is government then, whether the petitioners are liable to pay their share towards E. S. I, contribution or not this dispute can be raised before the Labour Tribunal in terms of Basant kumar Sarkar and Others v. The Eagle rolling Mills Ltd. and Others (1964-II-LLJ-105) (SC), wherein it has been observed as" under:"held, that although the powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 226 are very wide they could not take in within their, sweep industrial dispute of the kind which the contention of the workmen sought to raise. The proper remedy which was available to the workmen to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars was to take recourse to: sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief, if possible under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act. " ( 3 ) SINCE the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy the writ petition cannot be entertained. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the respondent corporation is that even when the proviso to section 1 (4) of the E. S. I. Act is sought to be enforced, the petitioners can apply for examination that is another aspect which is available under the E. S. I. Act. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. ( 5 ) THE basic question which is required to be agitated in this case is whether the respondent Hotel is a Government or not and whether the exemption as provided under the proviso to Section 1 (4) of the E. S. I. Act is applicable or,not. To determine the controversy evidence would be required and this Court on the basis of affidavits could not adjudicate the controversy. If the petitioner wants to raise this question then to get the dispute agitated they will have to approach the Labour Tribunal as held vide Basant kumar Sarkar (supra ). ( 6 ) PETITIONERS have yet another mode to get itself exempted from the provisions of the e. S. I. Act by making an application under section 91 of the E. S. I. Act and in view of the fact that another remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court would be slow in interfering with the matter in its writ jurisdiction. ( 7 ) LASTLY, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were exempted from paying the E. S. I, contribution by an interim order of this Court. Therefore, the contribution for this period should not be realised from them because there was an interim order in their favour and now that should not be realised because they have not availed the facility of E. S. I. ( 8 ) IN this regard, it would be appropriate to direct the E. C. I. Corporation to consider that since the petitioners have not availed the facility of E. S. I, from then they should waive the realisation of the contribution for this period from the petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances and the necessary orders in this regard would be issued by the E. S. I. Corporation. ( 9 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.