J. N. BHATT, KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-original petitioner filed Special Civil Application no. 18226 of 2002 for a direction to the respondent no. 1 State of Gujarat through Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad to take aprpopriate action to restore the service conditions which were prevailing in the respondent no. 2 company before 31/10/2001 and to initiate appropriate action pursuant to the breach of statutory rules and regulations restraining the respondents from committing any further breach of statutory rules and regulations. ( 2 ) IT is asserted in the petition that the petitioner is a registered trade union operating in the respondent no 2 company for about 30 years and the respondent no. 2 company started manufacturing activities at Ranip about 40 years ago. On 16th October, 2001 the respondent company alleged to have issued a notice to its workmen regarding financial crisis inthe company, but actually no notice was made known to the majority of the workmen and also to the petitioner union. On 3 1/10/2001 the respondent company issued a communication reducing the age of retirement from 60 years to 55 years and also changed the service conditions of withholding monthly allowances to be given to the workmen and the same was to be deposited with the company and the payment was to be made at the age of superannuation. Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "act") provides that no employer can make any change in the condition of service of any workmen without giving the workman who is likely to be affected by such change, a notice at least 20 days prior to giving effect of such change. In the present case, no notice was issued to the workmen by the respondents. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondent company is contrary to the statutory provisions of law and that amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent company. As per clause-27 of Model Standing Orders, the age of retirement or superannuation of the workman is 60 years. The age of retirement or superannuation can be changed only if there is any agreement or settlement to that effect between employer and the workman. But in the present case, there is no such settlement or agreement between the petitioner union and respondent company. The age of retirement or superannuation can be changed only if there is any agreement or settlement to that effect between employer and the workman. But in the present case, there is no such settlement or agreement between the petitioner union and respondent company. Clause-27 of the Model Standing Orders, for workmen doing manual or technical work, applicable for Gujarat reads as under :"27 : The age of retirement or superannuation of the workman may be 60 years or such other age may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award, which may be binding on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force. " ( 3 ) 12 officers and managers and 15 members and 95 workers were relieved by the communication dated 31/10/2001 as they were more than 55 years of age. The action of the respondent company is violative of section 9-A of the Act and clause-27 of the Model Standing Orders. The petitioner union issued a notice and sought clarification from the company and also made complaint to the Labour Commissioner about breach of the statutory provisions of clause-27 of the Model Standing Orders applicable for workmen doing manual or technical work and change of service condition and violation of statutory provisions of section 9-A of the Act. In the month of December, the respondent company has withheld the monthly allowance of Rs. 860. 00 from the salary of workers in clear violation of the statutory provisions of law. The petitioner union made a complaint on 22nd January, 2002 to the competent authority for breach of statutory provisions by the respondent company. As the respondent company has not given any response, the petitioner had to file a petition being Special Civil Application no. 1826 of 2002 in this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge issued a notice to the respondents and after giving full opportunity to the parties, dismissed the petition vide order dated 21st February, 2002. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February 2002, the appellant-original petitioner has filed this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant papers on record. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February 2002, the appellant-original petitioner has filed this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant papers on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statutory provisions of section 9-A of the Act has been violated by the respondent company whereby the allowances payable to the workmen have been withheld. The retirement age has been reduced from 60 years to 55 years by the notice dated 3 1/10/2001, the immediate termination of service of large number of workmen hasbeen contemplated which amounts to retrenchment. He further submitted that change in any form in the standing orders cannot be made except by procedure prescribed under section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946. Clause-46 of the Model Standing Orders is in relation to the age of retirement and is part of schedule-I. There is no settlement or agreement in relation to the age of superannuation between petitioner Union and the respondent company. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of workmen of Food Corporation of India vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India reported in AIR 1985, SC, 670 wherein it is observed that no employer since the introduction of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contrary to its certified standing orders, as statutorily require to be drawn up, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, can dispense with the services of any workman without complying with the law in force in termination of service contrary to the provisions of Standing Orders and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be void. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad reported in AIR 1999, SC, 2423 wherein it has been observed as under:"therefore, obviously, a notice of change was a must before introducing the change otherwise it would be an illegal change. Any such illegal change invites a penalty under section 31 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a change which is punishable as a criminal offence would obviously be an illegal change. It must be held that without anything more, such an illegal change would be wholly ineffective. Any such illegal change invites a penalty under section 31 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a change which is punishable as a criminal offence would obviously be an illegal change. It must be held that without anything more, such an illegal change would be wholly ineffective. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent company contended this petition filed by the petitioner-appellant union is not entertainable in view of the fact that the respondent company is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A private dispute arising out of the conditions of service of the employees working in the private sector cannot challenge as the respondent company is neither a State nor is discharging any public duties. The petition involves adjudication of a private dispute. The petitioner is also not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy is available under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Two settlements dated 11. 11. 2001 and 2 9/12/2001 have been signed between the management of the respondent company and Gujarat Majdoor Sabha, a recognised union. They relate to the age of retirement and payment of allowances. Majority of the workmen have accepted the settlements. The President of petitioner Union Sarva Shri Hursinh Juhaji Thakore, Vice President of the petitioner union Shri Padamsinh O. Rathod, and members of the working committee of the petitioner union namely R. S. Joshi, Ramtaji Becharji amongst others have accepted the settlements. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing asbestos and pipes. It is a small cement grinding unit and it has been facing problems of marketing and has been incurring heavy losses. The respondent company has to shut down its machines to stop the production often and the workmen were given notice regarding financial position of the company vide notice dated 16. 10. 2001. It was displayed on the notice board of the company that on account of precarious financial position of the company, the management proposes action of withholding of allowances for the time being and to retire the employees who have attained the age of 55 years. After the notice dated 31. 10. 2001 having been displayed , the Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat, a recognised union of majority members, raised an industrial dispute by the notice dated 1. 11. After the notice dated 31. 10. 2001 having been displayed , the Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat, a recognised union of majority members, raised an industrial dispute by the notice dated 1. 11. 2001 and aproached the Conciliation officer with regard to the action proposed by the management as per its notice dated 31st October, 2001. The dispute was admitted in conciliation on 5. 11. 2001. The Conciliation officer required the respondent company to display a notice for information of all the workmen that the dispute has been admitted in conciliation proceedings. Accordingly, the respondent company displayed its notice on the notice board giving intimation from the conciliation officer that the dispute has been admitted in conciliation on 5. 11. 2001. Further conciliation will take place on 12. 11. 2001. These workmen were aware about pendency of the conciliation proceedings. officer. A large number of workmen were attending the office of the Commissioner of Labour on the dates on which conciliation proceedings used to take place. During pendency of the conciliation proceedings, a settlement came to be arrived at between the respondent company and Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat, a recognised and majority union on 11. 11. 2001. It was signed as 2 (P) settlement. As per the settlement it was agreed between the parties that those workmen who had attained the age of 57 years and who will attain the age of 57 years on 3 1/12/2001 will be treated to have been relieved from the active service of the company with effect from 1. 11. 2001 and they will be paid 50% of the basic pay and dearness allowance for the remainder of the service upto 60 years by advance cheques. All the workmen affected by the notice dated 31/10/2001 regarding retirement age as per the list except persons at serial no. 4 M. B. Desai accepted the settlement by signing a prescribed declaration. As per the settlement, the employees who were to attain the age of 57 years as on 31st December, 2001 were to stand relieved with effect from 1. 11. 2001 instead at the age of 55 years. 38 workmen who were between the age of 55 years and 57 years were taken back in service, whereas rest who had attained the age of 57 years as on 31/12/2001 had been paid 50% of the basic pay and dearness allowance by advance cheques. 11. 2001 instead at the age of 55 years. 38 workmen who were between the age of 55 years and 57 years were taken back in service, whereas rest who had attained the age of 57 years as on 31/12/2001 had been paid 50% of the basic pay and dearness allowance by advance cheques. The list of workmen who stood relieved with effect from 1. 11. 2001 on attaining the age of 57 years as on 31st December, 2001 including the President of the petitioner Union Shri Hursinh Juhaji Thakore, Vice President of the petitioner Union Padamsinh O. Rathod, the members of the working committee of the petitioner union namely S/s. R. S. Joshi, Ramtaji Becharji and others have availed the benefits of the settlement. Individual declarations have also been signed by the persons concerned who are office bearers of the petitioner union. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner union did not know about the said settlement. After the settlement with regard to the employees who had attained the age of 55 years, the respondent no. 2 and Majdoor Panchayat continued negotiations with regard to the dispute admitted in conciliation. Ultimately, 2 (P) settlement came to be signed on 29. 12. 2001 whereby the parties agreed that the age of retirement of the workmen of the respondent company will be 58 years. It is also provided that allowances will not be withheld for those who accepted the settlement. Out of 623 workmen excluding staff falling under the category of workmen excluding officers, managerial and executive staff, 476 had accepted the settlement. The recognised union Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat has settled the dispute as per the settlement dated 11. 11. 2001 and 29/12/2001. There is no dispute now pending before the conciliation officer. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent company submitted that except 33 employees, all have accepted the terms of the settlement. It is also contended that no breach of section 9-A of the Act committed. The petitioner union has been derecognised vide intimation dated 9. 8. 2001 as its membership fell below the required norms of 10% of the total workmen. It is also contended that no breach of section 9-A of the Act committed. The petitioner union has been derecognised vide intimation dated 9. 8. 2001 as its membership fell below the required norms of 10% of the total workmen. ( 7 ) DURING the course of arguments, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 31/10/2001 is in violation of section9-A of the Act regarding withholding of allowances, reduction of retirement age from 60 to 55 years as immediate retirement or termination amounts to retrenchment. For this purpose, the writ petition was filed in this Court, that has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge against whichthis LPA has been filed. ( 8 ) ON asking the learned counsel for the petitioner whether there is any Supreme Court authority on the point of availability of alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the High Court has entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the learned cousnel for the petitioner replied that nobody can ask for any authority in this respect where orders are void ab initio and he has not produce any authority of the Apex Court wherein alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been entertained by any of the High Courts and that has been confirmed by the Apex Court. ( 9 ) THOUGH various arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties regarding maintainability of the petition and violation of section 9-A of the Act, and cited several authorities in support of their contentions. Now, we consider the general rule for entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a well settled proposition of law that whenever a wrong either in doing something which is prohibited in law or omitting, something which is required to be done in law is committed, a legal remedy for redressal is provided under the statute. Redressal of the grievance can be made in the manner and procedure provided therefor before the competent authority to take cognizance. Deviation is an exeption. Redressal of the grievance can be made in the manner and procedure provided therefor before the competent authority to take cognizance. Deviation is an exeption. In the case where no alternative statutory remedy is available or the remedy has already been exhausted or that remedy is not efficacious or fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution of India is involved or the impugned order is without jurisdiction or passed by an authority which is not competent in law, the remedy by way of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is a prerogative and discretionary and is subject to our own self imposed limitations can be invoked. In other words, whenever any remedy is provided by any statute for the redressal of grievances that has to be availed, extraordinary jurisdiction of writ jurisdiction is not meant therefor except the circumstances mentioned above. In the present case, efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By that remedy, most of the workmen have raised their dispute regarding service conditions before conciliation officer where notice was issued to the remaining workmen of the respondent company as per orders of Conciliation Officer, notice was displayed on the notice board of the company. By two settlements between recognised union of the workmen and the respondent company, have settled their disputes. The settlement of the dispute is recognised and permissible under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. In ordinary law also, dispute can also be resolved by settlement between the parties. The dispute has been settled and accepted almost by all the employees except 33 employees as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent company. The learned Single Judge has made an observation that it is clear that the petitioner Union was sitting on the fence watching the events to take place and then approach this Court after having found that events which have taken place in a particular manner is not favourable to it. The learned Single Judge has made an observation that it is clear that the petitioner Union was sitting on the fence watching the events to take place and then approach this Court after having found that events which have taken place in a particular manner is not favourable to it. We could not pursuade the learned counsel for the respondent company to make available the benefits of the two settlements arrived at between the parties to the members of the petitioner union in view of the contention of the elarned counsel for the petitioner that the settlements have been arrived at under pressure, compulsion and coercion of the company and those settlements are void ab initio and not in the interest of the employees of the respondent company which amount to an unfair labour practice. The question whether the settlements have been arrived at between the parties under the pressure and compulsion of the respondent company is a question of fact and that question of fact cannot be examined by this Court. That could have been examined and adjudicated by the Labour Court/industrial Court after receiving the relevant evidence adduced by the parties concerned. As the settlements have been arrived at and accepted by majority of the employees of the respondent company, it will be presumed that those settlements are in the larger interest of workmen of the respondent company which can be acceptable by the petitioner-appellant union in this respect and the appellant union cannot be made an exception to the settlement as the settlements have already been accepted by all the workmen except 33 workmen though in the subsequent synopsis of written arguments and additional written submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent company, it is made clear that except 10 employees, rest of the workmen have accepted the settlements and thus, acceptance is by more than 98% of the employees and the conciliation proceedings are still not closed, it is open for the petitioner to agitate their claim at this stage also. The company has not implemented the notice as regards withholding of the allowances until the settlement was signed on 3 1/12/2001. The allowances were withheld from the wages of January, 2002 payable in February 2002 of only those workmen who did not accept the settlements. Thus, the notice was given the effect after 21 days as envisaged by section 9-A of the Act. The allowances were withheld from the wages of January, 2002 payable in February 2002 of only those workmen who did not accept the settlements. Thus, the notice was given the effect after 21 days as envisaged by section 9-A of the Act. Thus, in the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner Union has also alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. ( 10 ) AT this stage, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not expressing our views on the point as to whether the action of the respondent company in making alteration and change in the service conditions of the workmen by reducing the age by retirement or superannuation from 60 years to 55 or 57 or 58 years and withholding of allowances of the workmen is in violation of section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 as various factual aspects have to be adjudicated by competent court/authority for determination of the issue on hand canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant union, such as whether requisite notice for alteration in service conditions of the workmen in prescribed manner was issued or not, whether the notice was implemented after the prescribed period or before; whether any notice issued by the respondent company comes within the purview of section 9-A and clause 27 of the Standing Order or not; whether the members of appellant union were aware of such notice or not; whether the settlements arrived at between the respondent company and other members of other union were made under pressure, compulsion or coercion or at their volition and have any any binding effect onany of the workmen or also on the members of the appellant union. When the appellants were or not aware of such action. These questions of facts can be determined by the court of law/authority or Tribunal after examining evidence and/or material adduced by the parties in proper proceedings. When the appellants were or not aware of such action. These questions of facts can be determined by the court of law/authority or Tribunal after examining evidence and/or material adduced by the parties in proper proceedings. But it is an established fact that we take notice that statutory remedy is available under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act and almost all except 33 or 10, vast majority of the workmen have settled their dispute regarding change or alteration in the service condition with regard to reduction of retirement or superannuation age from 60 to 55 or 57 or 58 years and withholding of allowances in the conciliation proceedings According to the learned counsel of the respondent company, the conciliation proceedings are still not closed, even if closed, the appellant union can raise dispute before Conciliation Officer and resort its grievances under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act where question of facts can be determined in accordance with law. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circusmtances of the case, in our view, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and is fully justified in dismissing the petition of the appellant union. ( 12 ) ON the basis of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. .