RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Moradabad Region, Moradabad, Annexure-VI to the writ petition. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Guard/sahyog (Assistant) on 30-12-1988, Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as peon on 1-7-1989, Petitioner No. 3 was appointed Clerk on 19-7-1990 and Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Clerk/cashier in the Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bijnor, which is a registered society under U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. They have worked there continuously till 8-7-1993. 4. The source of its income of respondent-bank is by earning interest on inter bank deposit on advances made by it. The income of the bank started reducing due to reduction of interest by the nationalised banks and from May, 1993 under regulations and control of the Reserve Bank of India, hereinafter called as R. B. I. , which considerably reduced the interest rate on advances made by the Bank. 5. The number of employees working in the bank were more than the number of employees required. It has been alleged that the R. B. I. had fixed passing of 40 vouchers. The bank applied to the R. B. I. for permission for opening new branches in order to accommodate its surplus staff. Since the R. B. I. did not grant permission, the bank decided to retrench some of its employees in order to control its expenditure. The Chairman of the bank took the decision to retrench the surplus employees and by order dated 9-7-1993 retrenched Petitioners No. 1 to 4 under Section 6 (N) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Separate orders were passed against Petitioners No. 1 to 4 and the same were served on the petitioners. 6. Petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed writ petition before this Honble Court challenging the order dated 9-7- 1993. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide two separate orders dated 30-9-1993 and 26- 10-1993 directing the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Moradabad to decide representation of Petitioner No. 1 within two months by a reasoned order. 7. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Moradabad issued a show cause notice to the respondent bank on 14-10-1993 for showing cause why the order of retrenchment be not set aside under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 7. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Moradabad issued a show cause notice to the respondent bank on 14-10-1993 for showing cause why the order of retrenchment be not set aside under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The respondent-bank through its Chairman moved an application before the Deputy Registrar to supply the copies of the representation and report of the Assistant Registrar, but the Deputy Registrar inspite of written request did not supply the copy of the report. However, the respondent-bank filed its objection against show cause notice on 20-11-1993, inter-alia, that the petitioners were retrenched under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been stated in the objection that the Registrar of the Society has no power under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act to annul any resolution or cancel any order regarding service matter relating to employees/workmen. 8. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Moradabad vide its order dated 26-11-1993 set aside the order dated 9-7-1993 passed by respondent-bank. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the bank filed an appeal under Section 98 (i) (N) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The appeal was allowed by Respondent No. 1 setting aside the order dated 9-7-1993 vide order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Moradabad. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Joint Secretary Co-operative Appellate Authority Respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash Sharma has been substituted as his representative vide Courts order dated 26-7-1999. 9. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and I have perused the records. 10. Admittedly the petitioners are workmen as defined under Section 2 (Z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, proper forum for adjudication of dispute is labour Court under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. If the order of retrenchment from service has been passed without holding any enquiry or if no enquiry is found to be held or is found to be defective, then the employer has right to lead evidence before the labour Court/industrial Tribunal to substantiate the charges in the reference proceedings. If the order of retrenchment from service has been passed without holding any enquiry or if no enquiry is found to be held or is found to be defective, then the employer has right to lead evidence before the labour Court/industrial Tribunal to substantiate the charges in the reference proceedings. This Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition for redressal of the grievance of the petitioners, which requires findings of fact and 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 them before the labour Court. 11. In Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director U. P. Co-operative Union Lucknow and others, 1991 U. P. LBEC 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 Honble 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 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 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 exist exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to deviate from the well settled normal rule of relegating the petitioner to 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. " 12. As early as in 1970 in case of Co-operative Central Bank U. P. , reported in 1970 (1) SCR page 205, which has been reiterated in 2001 (2) ESC 365 in case of Agra District Cooperative Bank v. Prescribed Authority, the Apex Court held that the labour Courts had jurisdiction to decide the disputes of termination of service of the employees by the Co-operative Societies. 13. The petitioners have neither pleaded nor given any cogent reason before Court to establish that alternative remedy before the labour Court is inadequate and inefficacious as such writ petition cannot be entertained only on the ground that affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is pending for about eight years. The decisions of the Apex Court are binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and this Court will not allow its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. In the case of Scooters India and others v. Vijay E. V. Elder, 1998 SCC (L-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 termination of disputed questions of fact for which remedy under the industrial laws are available to the workman. " 15. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. No order as to costs. 16. It is, however, directed that if the petitioners raise 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 proceedings may be held expeditiously 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. .