JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in its proceedings No:10667-3960/POTN/TNSTC (V)/2014 dated 15.11.2014 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and further, direct the respondent to pay retirement benefits computing from 11.05.1990 to the date of retirement on 30.11.2012.) 1. The order dated 15.11.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to grant retirement benefits from the date of temporary appointment in the year 1990 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he joined the services of the respondent transport corporation in the year 1990 as driver. He was selected and appointed as driver and was continuously working. In the year 1994, he was directed to pay the caution deposit and he paid the same on 02.02.1994. However, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.11.2012. However, the pensionary benefits are calculated from the year 1997 instead of 1990. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was rejected. Thus, the writ petition is filed. 3. The service condition of a workman is governed under 12(3) Wage Settlement entered into between the management and trade union under the Industrial Disputes Act. The benefits are extended based on 12(3) Wage Settlement and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the labour Court for the purpose of adjudication of issues with reference to the documents and evidences available on record. Such an adjudication cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rights of the petitioner are to be crystalized with reference to the service conditions in the form of 12(3) Wage Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The principles, in this regard, are settled by this Court in the case of P.Muthukrishnan and others v. The Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. and others [2019 CDJ (MD) 3456]. In view of the said principles, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent labour Court for the purpose of redressing his grievances in the manner contemplated. That apart, the workman has to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act. In view of the said principles, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent labour Court for the purpose of redressing his grievances in the manner contemplated. That apart, the workman has to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act. Contrarily, filing of writ petition is not appreciable in all circumstances since adjudication of issue is imminent for the purpose of deciding the issue. Thus, under all circumstances, a workman is expected to exhaust the statutory remedy contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act for effective adjudication of issues. In the event of factual finding by the labour Court, the High Court would be in a better position to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contrarily in the absence of factual finding it may not be possible on many occasions to decide the issues with reference to the rights to be crystalized between the parties. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Court. In the event of any such approach, the Court concerned may take into consideration the period of writ petition pending before this Court for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any and adjudicate the issue on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.