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 of the appellate authority award dated 24.10.2014 on the file of Deputy General Manager (B&O) Chennai Zone-II, No.DGM (B&O/II/HR) which confirmed the finding of the enquiry officer dated 18.06.2014 No.DIS/CON/149 and quash the same and reinstate the petitioner as Head Messenger at State Bank of India, Nanganallur Branch, Chennai - 61, with all back wages and other benefits.) 1. The order of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as Messenger in the State Bank of India on compassionate ground. She was posted at Nanganallur Branch at Chennai. On account of certain allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The charges against the petitioner were that (i) on 05.07.2013, when Cash Officer handed over Rs.1,000/- packet to her for affixing note slip she surreptitiously removed one 1000 Rupee note, from the packet with malafide intention and (ii) on 07.07.2013, when Cash Officer handed over Rs.1,000/- packet to her for affixing note slip she surreptitiously removed one 1000 Rupee note, from the packet with malafide intention. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the Enquiry Officer, based on improper enquiry, held that the charges against the petitioner are held proved. Thus, the order of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner based on the improper enquiry is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel strenuously contended that the principles of natural justice has not been followed and the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service based on the unilateral decision taken by the authorities. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the procedures were scrupulously followed by the respondents while conducting the process of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was a workman and was governed under the terms and conditions of the 12(3) settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the petitioner has to exhaust the statutory remedy contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act and thus, he has to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for redressal of the grievances. Hence, this Writ Petition is not entertainable. 5. The petitioner was a workman and was governed under the terms and conditions of the 12(3) settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the petitioner has to exhaust the statutory remedy contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act and thus, he has to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for redressal of the grievances. Hence, this Writ Petition is not entertainable. 5. This Court is of the considered opinion that exhausting the statutory remedy contemplated is of paramount importance. Disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no evidence to establish the charges. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated that before the Enquiry Officer, the charges are held proved. In such circumstances, the petitioner has to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the disputed issues, which cannot be undertaken by the High Court in a writ proceedings. The adjudication is to be done with reference to the documents and evidences relied on between the parties. 8. That apart, factual findings are important for the purpose of framing an opinion with reference to the issues raised between the parties and in the absence of any such clear factual findings, the High Court may not be in a position to exercise the judicial review effectively. That exactly is the reason why the Courts are repeatedly holding that the appellate remedy and statutory remedy provided to the aggrieved person has to be exhausted before approaching the High Court by filing a writ petition. Such findings of the appellate authority would be of greater assistance to the High Court to exercise the power of judicial review effectively. That apart, the very purpose and object of providing such a statutory remedy under the Act is to ensure that the decisions taken by the original authorities are effectively re-visited by the appellate authorities and the judicial forums. 9. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly is a workman and the service conditions are governed under the 12(3) settlement. Thus, the petitioner has to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for effective adjudication of disputed issues between the parties. 10. 9. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly is a workman and the service conditions are governed under the 12(3) settlement. Thus, the petitioner has to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for effective adjudication of disputed issues between the parties. 10. 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]. 11. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, she is at liberty to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication of disputed issues and redress her grievances in the manner known to law. In the event of any such approach, the forum concerned shall take into consideration the period during which this writ petition was pending before the High Court for the purpose of condonation of delay and decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.