JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Petitioner, by way of this writ petition, challenges the order dated 28.11.2014 whereby the petitioner, who was a Conductor (Probation Trainee), has been removed from service on the ground of unsatisfactory service during training period and that her integrity was not found to be unquestionable. He has also assailed the order dated 11.06.2015 dismissing his departmental appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 25.11.2014 for his delinquency in allowing five passengers without ticket to travel in the bus and without conducting a regular enquiry, the petitioners' services have been dispensed with. It is also submitted by the petitioner that in cases relating to other Conductors, miner penalties were imposed where the charge was of two or four passengers found travelling without ticket. Counsel submits that similar treatment ought to have been given to the petitioner and she has been wrongfully removed from service. 3. The respondents filed reply and submitted therein that taking into consideration conduct of the petitioner, her services were not found to be satisfactory and therefore, as the petitioner was indulging and guilty of committing irregularities, the order impugned was passed. 4. This Court, in cases relating to Conductors, whose serves were terminated on account of departmental enquiry or without conducting departmental enquiry, has held that there is a statutory remedy available to raise a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directly before the Labour Court and the petitioners therein were directed to raise dispute before the concerned Labour Court and the concerned Labour Court was directed to directly decide the claim petition within a stipulated period. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench this Court in the case of Ramraj Gurjar vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 485 has taken the view as under:- "6. An alternative remedy available to a litigant is not an absolute bar for invocation of High prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so, the Constitution does not hesitate in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction where an order passed by the State or its functionary or an agency or instrumentality of the State is found to be in utter disregard and flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. More so, the Constitution does not hesitate in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction where an order passed by the State or its functionary or an agency or instrumentality of the State is found to be in utter disregard and flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, if the petitioner did not avail of the mechanism provided by the industrial Disputes Act by raising an industrial dispute with regard to his termination, in our view, it cannot be held to have disentitled the petitioner from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The Single Judge failed to appreciate and consider peculiar fact situation of the case, particularly, that the order of termination dated 17th February, 2007 has been passed without holding any enquiry and on its face that order appears to be not in accord with law." 5. Taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ramraj Gurjar vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others (supra), this Court does not find any peculiar circumstance which may lead this Court to take a different view than what it has already taken by this Court in the case of Suman Kumari vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7284/2016), decided on 06.03.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "The petitioner, who was working as Conductor, has been removed from service vide order dated 24.06.2015. An alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner by preferring dispute and claim petition under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the concerned Labour Court. The petitioner is allowed to submit her claim petition directly before the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall decide the dispute within a period of nine months from the date of submission of such a claim petition, if it is preferred within fifteen days from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The interim order passed by the Court is vacated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty." 6. Consequently, taking into consideration the view taken by this Court in the similar matter in the case of Suman Kumari vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others (supra), the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty." 6. Consequently, taking into consideration the view taken by this Court in the similar matter in the case of Suman Kumari vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others (supra), the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Labour Court directly and raise a dispute and if such a dispute is raised, the Labour Court concerned is expected to decide the dispute expeditiously.