JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. All these writ appeals arise out of the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging the orders of dismissal from service. 2. Heard Mr. K. Mahendran, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondents Transport Corporation. 3. All the appellants herein were dismissed from service, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. The orders of dismissal from service were challenged by the appellants in a batch of writ petitions. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of effective alternative remedy, in terms of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act"). Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellants/workmen are before us. 4. There is no denial of the fact that the appellants are workmen within the meaning of the expression "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is also no denial of the fact that the respondent Corporation is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is also no denial of the fact that the remedy before the Labour Court for a workman, will be more effective remedy than the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that the Labour Court is competent to go into the questions of fact, give opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence and also interfere with the quantum of penalty under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellants have an effective alternative remedy. 5. But, it does not mean that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is ousted. Since the respondents Corporation is a Public Transport Corporation, it will come within the definition of the word "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The dismissal of a person affects his right to life and livelihood. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the appellants cannot be said to be not maintainable. 6. In cases where orders of dismissal from service are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Standing Orders, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution sometimes proves to be more efficacious and quicker remedy. 7. 6. In cases where orders of dismissal from service are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Standing Orders, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution sometimes proves to be more efficacious and quicker remedy. 7. This a very strange case where the workmen want to come before this Court despite the settled legal position that the Labour Court has much better jurisdiction than this Court. Similarly, this is a case where the Management will have a larger protection in writ petition, but they want the workmen to go before the Labour Court. 8. The jurisdiction of this Court does not stand ousted by the fact that remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the respondents Corporation sought to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 . As a matter of fact, there is no one Rajasthan Road State Transport Corporation Case. There are seven Rajasthan State Transport Corporation cases, each of which speak on different language. The purport of all these seven decisions have been dealt with by one of us (VRSJ) in The Madras Race Club v. M. Victor, 2013 (6) CTC 481 . But, all these decisions deal with the question about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis-a-vis Labour Court. They do not deal with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution vis-a-vis Labour Court. 9. In P. Pitchumani vs. The Management of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd., 2004 (3) CTC 1 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation, this Court was concerned with the rights of the workmen, working in a private establishment. The management of the company, which was the respondent in that case, was not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court as it was a private employer. The respondents Corporation is a State Transport Corporation, wholly owned by the State of Tamil Nadu and is a public authority. Therefore, the Full Bench cannot be relied upon by the respondents Corporation. 10. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575 , the Court was concerned with a change in working conditions. Therefore, the Full Bench cannot be relied upon by the respondents Corporation. 10. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575 , the Court was concerned with a change in working conditions. Therefore, the question as to whether the procedure prescribed under Section 9-A of the Act was followed or not was the issue before the Supreme Court. This naturally required the Court to probe into minute details such as the conditions of service existing on the date of the change and the modifications sought to be effected by the change. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that they could be dealt with easily by the Labour Court. 11. It is true that in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidev Amma, (2001) 5 SCC 433 , the Supreme Court pointed out that the management has a right to adduce evidence in the event of a preliminary finding being recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. But, we do not think that the management need to be concerned so much about the right to adduce evidence. Today, the stand of the management is that they have conducted a fair and proper enquiry; that they have not violated the principles of natural justice and that they have not violated any rule or procedure. Once that is so, all that the management has to fear is Section 11-A of the Act. If the workman has come before the High Court, the management need not fear Section 11-A of the Act. 12. Therefore, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Judge is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the workmen are admitted. The management shall file a counter within a period of four weeks. Four weeks thereafter, the writ petitions may be listed before the writ court. It is needless to state that the writ petitions will be examined subject to the parameters within which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will be examined. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.