Judgment 1. The petitioner having been issued with memorandum of charges dated 03.01.2013, submitted his explanation on 16.01.2013. Enquiry Officer appointed has submitted report dated 11.07.2013 along with the findings. Copy of said report was furnished to the petitioner along with a notice dated 22.07.2013. The petitioner having submitted a representation dated 01.08.2013, seeking dropping of the proceedings, the 2nd respondent having considered the record of the enquiry and having found that the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved, by accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct has imposed major punishment of dismissal from the service of the 1st respondent-Federation, by an order dated 28.10.2013. Assailing the said order, as at Annexure-A, this writ petition was filed on 26.12.2013 2. Sri G.M. Ananda, learned advocate, contended that there being violation of principles of natural justice, interference in the matter is called for. However, learned counsel did not dispute the fact that the impugned order can be questioned by raising a dispute under S.70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 3. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Whether there is violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of passing the impugned order is a fact which can be established in the enquiry, which can take place, if a dispute under S.70 of the Act is raised before the Registrar Co-operative Societies. 4. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., vs. U.P. Rajya Selton Nigam S. Karmachari Sangha, (2004) 4 SCC 268 , Apex Court has held that the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and the specific remedy is, therefore, provided in the statute and hence, High Court should not deviate from general view and interference under Article 226, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. 5. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Krishna Kant and others,, (1995) 5 SCC 75 , Apex Court has held as follows: "28. 5. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Krishna Kant and others,, (1995) 5 SCC 75 , Apex Court has held as follows: "28. Now, coming back to Principle No.2 and its qualification in Para 24, we must say that Para 24 must be read harmoniously with the said principle and not in derogation of it -not so as to nullify it altogether. Indeed, Principle N0.2 is a reiteration of the principle affirmed in several decisions on the subject including Dhulabhai. Principle N0.2 is clear whereas Para 24 is more in the nature of a statement of fact. It says that most of the industrial disputes will be disputes involving the rights and obligations created by the Act. It, therefore, says that there will hardly be any industrial dispute which will fall under Principle No.2 and that almost all of them will fall under Principle No.3. This statement cannot be understood as saying that no industrial dispute can ever be entertained by or adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts. Such an understanding would not only make the statement of law in Principle No.2 wholly meaningless but would also run counter to the well-established principles on the subject. It must accordingly be held that the effect of Principle No.2 is in no manner whittled down by Para 24. At the same time, we must emphasis the policy of law underlying the Industrial Disputes Act and the host of enactments concerning the workmen made by Parliament and State legislatures. The whole idea has been to provide a speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of Civil Courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedures followed by Civil Courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the Courts and Tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and re-make the contracts, settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extra-ordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a Civil Court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the Courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them." 6. Keeping in view the provisions of the Act, there being alternative remedy, which is efficacious, this writ petition cannot be entertained. In the result, the writ petition is rejected by reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the order, as at Annexure-A, in a dispute under S.70 of the Act. All contentions raised in this writ petition are kept open for consideration and decision. The certified copies/original documents produced along with this writ petition be returned forthwith to Sri G.M. Ananda. No costs.