ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.05.2022 marked Annexure-L. In terms of Annexure-L, the petitioner’s representation dated 12.04.2022 to grant salary and allowance payable to the Safety Officer and to recognize the petitioner’s status as Safety Officer in the respondent establishment is rejected. 2. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner as Safety Officer as required under Rule 88-A (2), B & C of Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 (‘Rules, 1969’ for short) with effect from 2019 with all consequential monetary benefits applicable to Senior Executive Officer in the Naval Ship Repair Yard, Karwar. Writ of mandamus is also sought to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure and enforce and implement the statutory provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (‘Act, 1948’ for short) read with Rules, 1969 by providing status and facilities to the petitioner to effectively discharge duties as Safety Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture would submit that the petitioner is already appointed as a Safety Officer and the prayer to appoint him as Safety Officer is redundant. However it is submitted that the petitioner is not given the benefits salary service benefits payable to Safety Officer. 4. The said submission is placed on record. 5. Certain facts are admitted; the petitioner was appointed as Chargeman on 14.12.2012 at Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam. On 01.03.2017, the petitioner was transferred from Visakhapatnam to Karwar. The petitioner completed Advance Diploma in Industrial Safety by securing 75.09% from the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. On 23.05.2019, the petitioner was re-designated as Foreman In-Charge in Yard Safety Department. 6. It is stated by the petitioner that on 03.09.2020 the Senior Assistant Director of Factories, Hubballi conducted inspection. The report would indicate that the respondent has appointed the Safety Officer as required under Rule 88-A (2), (b) of the Rules, 1969. And on 14.10.2020, the respondent constituted an Apex Safety Committee and the in the said Committee the petitioner is shown as Foreman, In-charge Safety. 7. Later on 23.02.2021 the petitioner submitted a representation to fix his pay scale on par with pay and allowances payable to the Safety Officer and the petitioner approached the Senior Assistant Director of Factories seeking redressal of his grievance as the application was not considered by the respondent. 8. 7. Later on 23.02.2021 the petitioner submitted a representation to fix his pay scale on par with pay and allowances payable to the Safety Officer and the petitioner approached the Senior Assistant Director of Factories seeking redressal of his grievance as the application was not considered by the respondent. 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Senior Assistant Director of the Factories to appoint the petitioner as Safety Officer, the petitioner was appointed as Safety Officer on 05.08.2021 in terms of letter issued by Admiral Superintendent. However, appropriate salary was not paid and one more representation was submitted on 12.04.2022 to the respondent and said representation was rejected on 20.05.2022 in terms of impugned orders. 9. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Bengaluru in O.A. No.170/296/2022. The respondent appears to have raised a contention that the petition is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The petition was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.21401/2022. The writ petition was dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the earlier order dated 28.07.2022 which permitted withdrawal of the O.A. No.170/296/2022. The petitioner filed review petition and said petition was dismissed. 10. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the JMFC, Karwar in Criminal Misc. No.70/2023. The said complaint is also dismissed holding that the Court has no jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No.103356/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. 11. These facts are not in dispute. The disputed question is; whether the respondent is under obligation to appoint a Safety Officer in its establishment and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to the allowance and other service benefits payable to the Safety Officer. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 88(A)2 of Rules, 1969 provides for appointment of the Safety Officer and also provides for the service conditions of the Safety Officer as well as the qualification prescribed. It is also submitted that under Section 40(b) of the Act, 1948 it is mandatory to have a Safety Officer in the establishment which employs more than 1000 employees. 13. The fact that the respondent has employed more than 1000 employees is not in dispute. It is also submitted that under Section 40(b) of the Act, 1948 it is mandatory to have a Safety Officer in the establishment which employs more than 1000 employees. 13. The fact that the respondent has employed more than 1000 employees is not in dispute. This being the position, there is no difficulty in holding that the respondent is required to have a Safety Officer in its establishment. 14. It is also relevant to notice that the officers under the Act, 1948 conducted an inspection in the respondent premises and in the inspection report it is opined that there is a Safety Officer in the respondent establishment. The Apex Committee constituted by the respondent establishment would also reveal that the petitioner was appointed as the foreman and as well as in-charge Safety Officer. 15. Since Act, 1948 and the Rules, 1969 framed there under apply to the respondent, the question is; whether the respondent has appointed a person as a Safety Officer as mandated under law. 16. It is not the case of the respondents that they have appointed some other person as a Safety Officer. On the other hand, the respondents have taken a contention that in the Naval Ship Repair Yard the Safety Officer is not required. The said contention cannot be accepted. The decision of the respondent establishment to not to have a Safety Officer in the Naval Ship Repair Yard cannot override the requirement of Act of 1948 and the Rules, 1969 framed there under. 17. Since the law mandates the Safety Officer to be appointed for an establishment like the respondent, there has to be a Safety Officer and the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner would also disclose that the petitioner has been appointed as a Safety Officer. 18. Referring to the said appointment letter, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the appointment is made without conferring any additional financial benefits and the petitioner has accepted the said terms and conditions by accepting the appointment letter without any protest. The Court is not convinced. The service benefits payable to the Safety Officer is also governed under the Rules, 1969. Hence, in case any service benefits payable to the Safety Officer is not paid, same amounts to violation of the Rules, 1969. 19. The Court is not convinced. The service benefits payable to the Safety Officer is also governed under the Rules, 1969. Hence, in case any service benefits payable to the Safety Officer is not paid, same amounts to violation of the Rules, 1969. 19. Learned counsel for respondent would also raise a contention that since the respondent has appointed the petitioner as a Safety Officer, the writ Court does not get the jurisdiction, the petitioner has to approach the Central Government Administrative Tribunal which is the jurisdictional Tribunal to deal with the issues raised in the present petition. The contention is raised on the premise that the petitioner is having efficacious statutory remedy. 20. Availability of alternative remedy though is one of the grounds available to contend that the writ Court need not entertain the petition and has to direct the party to approach the jurisdictional Tribunal, there is no bar under the Constitution to entertain the writ petition in deserving cases despite alternative remedy being available. 21. The question is whether the petitioner has made it a case to entertain the writ petition despite alternative remedy. As already noticed, when the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Tribunal, the respondent raised the contention that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 22. In addition to that, the petitioner has also approached the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class alleging violation of Rule 88 and has filed a complaint under Section 92 read with Section 105 of Act of 1948. Unfortunately, the JMFC has rejected the complaint holding that it has no jurisdiction though it has the jurisdiction under Section 105 of Act of 1948. And the said order is also called in question on the premise that JMFC which had a jurisdiction declined to exercise the jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding alternative remedy a case is made out to entertain the writ petition. 23. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been discharging the responsibility of Safety Officer since 2021 till today, the service benefits are not paid. Having raised the contention before the Administrative Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s grievance, the respondent now cannot ask the petitioner to approach the same Tribunal for redressal of the similar grievance. 24. In addition to that more importantly, the petition is all about enforcement of the statutory Rules, 1969. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is entertained. 25. 24. In addition to that more importantly, the petition is all about enforcement of the statutory Rules, 1969. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is entertained. 25. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has also referred to the Fundamental Rule 11 which reads under: “F.R. 11-Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim for additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from general revenue, from a local fund or from the funds of it body incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or contributed by the Government.” 26. Fundamental Rule 11 can come into operation only in a situation where there is no contrary rule. Since the Act, 1948 and Rules, 1969 provide for appointment of a Safety Officer, the Fundamental Rule 11 has to yield to the said provision. 27. It is noticed that the respondent has not paid the payment for last 5 years since appointment payable to the Safety Officer. 28. The respondent shall recognise the petitioner as the Safety Officer and shall pay all the service benefits from the date of re-designation as Safety Officer till date and shall continue to pay the service benefits till the petitioner discharges his duty as the Safety Officer. 29. Since impugned order at Annexure-N rejecting the petitioner’s complaint for want of jurisdiction is quashed, the proceeding in Criminal Misc. No.70/2023 before the JMFC, Karwar is restored. 30. However, the petitioner shall not prosecute the said complaint till next 60 days and in case the service benefits are not paid, the petitioner is at liberty to prosecute the complaint. 31. This Court is inclined to impose interest on the delayed payment of service benefits. However, the award of interest is deferred and in case the service benefits are not paid within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy, the respondent is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% for annum from the date the amount fell due. 32. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Annexure-L dated 21-05-2022 bearing No.HRC/7620 passed by Respondent No.1 is quashed. (iii) The impugned Annexure-N dated 04-05-2023 in Crl. Misc. 32. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Annexure-L dated 21-05-2022 bearing No.HRC/7620 passed by Respondent No.1 is quashed. (iii) The impugned Annexure-N dated 04-05-2023 in Crl. Misc. No.70/2023 on the file of JMFC, Karwar is quashed. (iv) The respondents No.1 to 3 shall confer the service benefits applicable to Safety Officer in terms of the requirement under Rule 88-A (2), B & C of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 with effect from 23.05.2019 and the service benefits under the applicable Rules of respondents No.1 and 2 relating to the service conditions of a Safety Officer. (v) In case the order is not complied within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy the JMFC, Karwar shall proceed with the complaint in Crl. Misc. No.70/2023 in accordance with law.