ORDER Prabhu Rajadurai, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. By consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in arbitration case No. 6 of 2002 and also quash the award passed by the first respondent dated 30.4.2004. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed under the second respondent company as Computer Software Trainee and he was dismissed from service on 30.8.2001. As per the terms of contract of appointment, the matter was referred to the arbitration to decide the dispute. After completion of the arbitration proceedings, the award was passed on 30.4.2004 sanctioning an amount of Rs.8,44,955/- as compensation to the petitioner. This award is challenged before this Court under Article 226 of constitution of India. Even though, earlier this Court has passed an order of Stay, subsequently the order of stay came to be vacated on 25.4.2005. 5. Law is well settled as to whether the writ petition is maintainable in respect of contract matters especially in relation to a private dispute wherein the matter has been referred to the arbitrator under the Arbitration Act. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court in an earlier decision rendered in Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta v. The Collector, Jabalpur and others Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta v. The Collector, Jabalpur and others Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta v. The Collector, Jabalpur and others AIR 1981 SC 479 : (1980) 4 SCC 556 , while referring to the Arbitration Act, 1940 has held that the said Act is a self-contained exhaustive code and any remedy for any breach can be referred only under the Act and the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be maintained. Even in a recent decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in Binny Limited and others v. V. Sadasivan and others Binny Limited and others v. V. Sadasivan and others Binny Limited and others v. V. Sadasivan and others 2005 (5) CTC 117 in, while considering Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, in respect of termination of service of managerial staff and whether the same is opposed to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the Supreme Court held that even is such a contract is opposed to public policy and void and illegal, the power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has got a limited application in contractual matter even in respect of public bodies. Since no public element is involved in termination of employment of managerial staff by a private employer, the Honourable Supreme Court has upheld the order of the High Court holding that there is no public law element and the remedy open to the appellant therein is to seek appropriate relief other than judicial review. 6. In view of the established legal position, I do not think that the writ petition is maintainable which relates to the arbitration award passed by the first respondent based on the Contract of appointment entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent. 7. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.