JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.1.1990 and 31.1.1990, Annexures-16 and 19 to the writ petition and the lists prepared on behalf of respondent No. 1, Annexures-4, 12 and 14 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Copyist Sadar on 12.10.1950 in Collectorate, Farrukhabad and worked there till 10.5.1952. Thereafter, after a break of 69 days, he was again appointed as Extra Copyist on 19.7.1952. Vide G.O. No. P. 8690/11-C-54-1961, dated 29.9.1967, the petitioner joined as Clerk in Farrukhabad Judgeship. 4. The petitioner was posted as Sadar Munsarim on 23.1.1990, in the court of IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, in pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300, but on 31.1.1990 respondent No. 1 reverted him without any opportunity in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,400 showing Sri Uma Shankar Mishra as senior to him in different lists prepared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and as such, it is alleged that petitioner’s reversion is against the principles of natural justice. It is further alleged that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Senior Administrative Officer in Farrukhabad Judgeship as he had completed 40 years of service at the time of filing the present writ petition, i.e., 14.3.1990. 5. These questions are pure questions of fact and require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence for deciding the dispute and establishment of his legal rights by the petitioner. 6. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and I have perused the same. 7. The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has raised disputed questions of fact in this writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated except by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The question of promotion and alleged illegal reversion falls within the realms of the labour court which can adjudicate and grant appropriate relief to the aggrieved workman. This Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition for redressal of the grievance of this nature. In these circumstances, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the labour court. 8. This Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition for redressal of the grievance of this nature. In these circumstances, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the labour court. 8. In Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 UPLBEC 898, the Full Bench of this Court in paras 9 and 13 of the judgment has held : “9. Having regard to the above noticed decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is ruled that where a complete machinery/remedy for obtaining relief is provided in statute and such machinery and remedy fully covers the grievance of the petitioner then, unless extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist or the machinery-remedy does not cover the grievance of the petitioner or the machinery or remedy is demonstrated and proved by the petitioner to be inadequate or in-efficacious, the petitioner has to be relegated to the alternative remedy and this Court shall not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievance by the petitioner. 13. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this Court, noted above, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the High Court must not allow its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be invoked if the petitioner has got an alternative remedy and proved to be inadequate or inefficacious or if it is not established from the material on record that there exists exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to deviate from the well settled normal rule of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy and permit him to by-pass the alternative remedy. The hurdle of alternative remedy cannot be allowed to be skipped over lightly on a casual and bald statement in the petition that there is no other equally efficacious or adequate alternative remedy than to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea.” 9. The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea.” 9. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor given any cogent reasons in the writ petition to establish that alternative remedy available to him before the labour court is inadequate and inefficacious, no writ petition can be entertained only on the ground that affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the petition is pending for about 11 years. Entertaining a writ petition does not mean that it has to be allowed in all circumstances. The decisions of the Apex Court are binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court will not allow its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be invoked in aforesaid circumstances particularly when the disputed questions of fact require adjudication by appreciation of oral and documentary evidence for establishment of the legal rights of the respective parties. 10. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and Rules framed thereunder are adequate and provide remedy for settlement of any industrial dispute. The Act and Rules are complete Code for settlement and adjudication of dispute and provide a forum before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for arriving at findings of fact by taking into consideration the evidence, oral and documentary adduced before it, which cannot be resorted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the case of Scooters India and others v. Vijay F.V. Elder, 1998 SCC (L&S) 1611, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the judgment has held as under : “2. ..................there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition directly for adjudication of an industrial dispute involving the termination of disputed questions of fact for which remedy under the industrial law are available to the workman.” 12. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 13. It is, however, directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner within a month from today, the said authority will try to amicably settle the dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the labour court in the manner prescribed and time limits provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, for filing written statements, rejoinders, documents etc. If necessary, the proceedings may be held on day to day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules and the same may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not later from the date of receipt of reference. No order as to costs.