RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 16-3-1990 passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure V to the writ petition and 29-1-1991 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure VII to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 1-5-1965 and later on his services were merged in UPSRTC. 4. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 16-12-1993. He was charge-sheeted vide order dated 21-12-1988 on the grounds that he was found guilty of not depositing Government money of Rs. 1001 in time for remaining absent from duty with effect from 3-12-1988 to 10-12-1988 without informing the Roadways Station Incharge as well as misappropriated the fair realised from eight passengers, which not only resulted into financial loss to the Corporation but ternished the image of the Corporation also. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10-5-1988 denying the charges levelled against him. Departmental enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted the reply to the show cause notice but respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16-3-1990 removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 29-1-1991. 6. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. I have also gone through the records. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner is a workman as defined under Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and proper forum for adjudication of dispute is Labour Court under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 8. This Court will not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and adjudicate upon a controversy which requires findings of fact by appraisal of oral and documentary evidence. In these circumstances, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court. 9. In Chandarma Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others, 1991 UPLBEC 898, the Full Bench of this Court in paras 9 and 13 of the judgment has held: " (9 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. In Chandarma Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others, 1991 UPLBEC 898, the Full Bench of this Court in paras 9 and 13 of the judgment has held: " (9 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 extra-ordinary 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 inefficacious, the petitioner has to be relegated to the alternative remedy and the Court should not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of grievance of the petitioner. " " (13 ). The decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India and this Court noted above, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the High Court must not allow its extra-ordinary 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 exist exceptional or extra-ordinary 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 causal and bald statement in the petition that there is no other adequate efficacious or adequate alternative remedy that to invoke the extra-ordinary 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. " 10. In the case of Scooters India and others v. Vijay E. V. Elder, 1998 SC (L and S) 1611, the Honble Supreme Court in para 2 of the judgment has held: " (2 ). . . . . . . . . . there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition directly for adjudication of an industrial dispute involving the adjudication of disputed questions of fact for which remedy under the industrial laws are available to the workman. " 11. . . . . . . . . . there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition directly for adjudication of an industrial dispute involving the adjudication of disputed questions of fact for which remedy under the industrial laws are available to the workman. " 11. The decisions of the Apex Court are binding on all Courts under Article 141 of Constitution. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules framed thereunder are adequate for settlement of any industrial dispute under the first, second or third schedule. The Act and Rules framed thereunder are complete Code for settlement and adjudication of disputes, 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. 12. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be diluted on the ground of pendency of the writ petition for quite a long time and the High Court may exercise its powers in such cases in rate of rarest cases. The Counsels not only must advise their clients about availability of alternative remedy, but should plead in the writ petition as to why that remedy is not efficacious and in rare circumstances the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is being invoked without first availing the alternative remedy. 13. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. 14. 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 for adjudication as the case may be. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Court in the manner prescribed and time limits provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 1957 for filing written statements, rejoinders, documents etc. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Court in the manner prescribed and time limits provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rule, 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 case may be decided preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of reference. Petition dismissed. .