RAJENDRA MENON, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner a registered trade union has filed the instant petition challenging Anfiexure P-2 dated 7. 12. 2001, is a memorandum of settlement entered into between the management of p. N. P. and P. N. P. Employees Federation. The said settlement is under Section 2 (3) of I. D. Act 1947. A perusal of the settlement indicates that the said settlement have been arrived at in the course of conciliation and the regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi was the conciliation Officer. The settlement is challenged in the instant petition on the ground that there are innumerable infirmities and it has changed in the service conditions of the employees. It has abolished and / or obliterated various categories. It is illbalanced and violation of principles of natural justice and discriminatory in nature. It is stated that this settlement will bind the members of the petitioner Union. ( 2 ) I have heard Shri Mule learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) DURING the course of hearing this court was of the opinion that as the petitioner is a registered trade Union and as the challenge in the instant petition is to a settlement entered into between a Union and the Employer under the provisions of I. D. Act, the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute and resolve the same in accordance with the procedure provided for it under the I. D. Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the petition, the settlement is percee illegal, arbitrary and therefore a writ petition under Article 226/227 is maintainable. Apart from this, he has placed reliance on series of judgments to indicate that the petition is maintainable. Amongst others he has relied upon the case of Anil Kumar upadhaya v. Sarkar (RK.) and Ors. , Monthly rated Workmen of Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd. , cochin v. Labour Commissioner and Ors. , padmanabhan Menon (T. K.) and Ors. v. Indian aluminimum Company Ltd. Alupuram and ors. The judgments of this court in the cases of Engineering Shramik Sangh and Anr. v. Cimmco Ltd. and Ors. Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. Dilip v. Prabandhak Samiti Maheshwari H. S. S. and ors. Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti maryadit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Ors. The judgments of this court in the cases of Engineering Shramik Sangh and Anr. v. Cimmco Ltd. and Ors. Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. Dilip v. Prabandhak Samiti Maheshwari H. S. S. and ors. Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti maryadit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Ors. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also considered the Judgments cited by him. Most of the Judgments cited by the petitioner pertains to challenge to the settlement on various grounds but they do not deal directly with the question of relegating the aggrieved parties to alternative remedy under the i. D. Act The cases have been dealt on merit and decided. There is no dispute that in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, this court can always look into the matter The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the discretion is to be exercised or not. ( 6 ) IN the case of Engineering Shramik sangh and Another v CIMMCO Ltd. and others referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner a close look at the said settlement would reveal that the learned Single Judge has not interferred with the merits of the case. After considering the statutory provisions and settlement of the parties, the settlement has been quashed not on the merits of the same but on the ground that the competent authority before registering the settlement has failed to comply with certain mandatory provisions and accordingly remitted back the matter to the Registrar for taking up the same afresh in accordance with law. In my opinion, the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever ( 7 ) AS already indicated hereinabove the rule which requires exhausting of statutory remedy before the writ petition can be entertained is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. There are numerous instances where writs have been issued inspite of the fact that the aggrieved person had other legal remedies. These are cases where the remedies are either ineffective or to cumbursion. Even otherwise it has been the consistent view of the courts that when a specific remedy, particularly provided under the Statute is available, the courts have not interferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. These are cases where the remedies are either ineffective or to cumbursion. Even otherwise it has been the consistent view of the courts that when a specific remedy, particularly provided under the Statute is available, the courts have not interferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling mills Ltd, had considered the question of entertaining a writ petition when certain notification issued under Section 1 (3) of the Employees State Insurance act 1948 was challenged. These orders were challenged by the workmen in the High Court. In that case, the high Court had held that the fact cannot be considered in a petition under Article 226 and the matter could be more properly dealt by raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the I. D. Act. The Supreme Court in appeal observed that even though the High Court has vide powers under Article 226, such powers cannot take into its sweep a industrial dispute which could be more properly dealt with by the Tribunal or the Labour Court under the provisions of I. D. Act. Similarly in the case of rohtas Industrial Ltd. v. Rohtas Industrial staff Union (T), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed :-"if the industrial dispute relates to enforcement of a right or a obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act " ( 8 ) SIMILARLY in the case of Bihar Rajya vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union v State of Bihar and Ors. , the court dismissed the petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy as the question related to terms and conditions of employment. Normally when there is an equal effective remedy, issuance of a mandamus is an exception. This court under Article 226 would give relief when the violation of fundamental right orsome mandatory provisions has been violated or the Act complied is contrary to law or without authority of law. Normally remedy under Article 226 is not meant to supercede completely the remedy available for obtaining relief by any other action like filing a civil suit or remedy under statutory Provision. Normally remedy under Article 226 is not meant to supercede completely the remedy available for obtaining relief by any other action like filing a civil suit or remedy under statutory Provision. Considered in the light of the aforesaid in the instant case the dispute is with regard to enforcement of settlement entered into under the provisions of 1 D Act the settlement has been entered into in conciliation proceedings between one Union and the Management. Another union is challenging the said settlement. In adjudicating the said dispute, various questions mainly with regard to the locus-standi would arise In the industrial establishment, the options and wishes of the employees who are likely to be effected by the settlement, effect of the provisions made in the settlement, the question with regard to the advantage and dis-advantage which may arise by implementing the settlements are the questions which requires determination in such disputes. In my opinion, these can be done only if evidence is recorded and the employees and the workmen or the officials likely to be effected by the settlement are permitted to give their say in the matter All these can be effectively dealt with by a Tribunal/labour court on an industrial dispute being raised. ( 9 ) THE petitioner being a registered trade union is free to challenging the same by raising an industrial dispute. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the dispute does not come within the provisions of Schedule to Industrial Dispute as contained in I. D. Act In my opinion, the aforesaid argument is mis-conceived. The dispute in question which relates to service conditions of employees is an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2 (k) of I. D Act and as it effects the terms and conditions of the services of the employees, it would come within the provisions of Schedule 3 which deals with the matter within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal. In my opinion the statement that the matter is not under the Schedule is mis-conceived ( 10 ) HAVING heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case the petitioner has a more efficacious alternative remedy and, therefore. I am not inclined to admit the petition. In my opinion the statement that the matter is not under the Schedule is mis-conceived ( 10 ) HAVING heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case the petitioner has a more efficacious alternative remedy and, therefore. I am not inclined to admit the petition. The same is therefore dismissed in limine ( 11 ) THE petitioner, if so advised may raise an Industrial Dispute in accordance with law the petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .