JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Welghment Clerk in Kisan Sahkarl Sugar Mill Limited which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.6.1984 in which serious allegations have been levelled against him. The charge-sheet has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet and after enquiry, his services were terminated by the General Manager of the Mill vide order dated 2nd February, 1985.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal and was also given opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared for personal hearing but declined to say anything. The appeal of the petitioner thereafter was rejected vide order dated 7.11.1986. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the aforesaid orders dated 2nd February, 1985 and 7.11.1986 impugned in this writ petition,
4. Shri H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious and the same have been found proved against him.
5. He has also raised a preliminary objection and submits that the petitioner was a workman as defined under Section (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he has an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy provided under the said Act. He further submits that questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it would require decision on the basis of evidence.
6. Shri Tripathi has relied on the decision rendered in Chandrama Singh u.. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Union and Ors.. 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 (63) FLR 478, in which it has been held that statutory remedy has to be exhausted before approaching this Court.
7. In K. K. Sriuastaua v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1977 SC 703, the Apex Court has observed that:
"Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court should keep its hands off."
8. Similarly in Bar Council of Delhi and Anr. v. Surjeet Singh and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1612, the Apex Court held that :
9. Thus, the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides complete remedy to the petitioner for grant of relief and no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner for invoking the writ jurisdiction. In Gufarat University v. H. U. Rajgu.ru. and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 66, the Hon*ble Supreme Court held that:
"We do not consider it necessary to burden by referring to the decisions of this Court laying down the principle that where a statute provides a complete machinery for obtaining relief against the orders passed by the authorities a petitioner cannot be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution."
10. Reference may in this regard be also made to Judgment of this Court in Sri Pal Singh v. The Registrar, U. P. Co-operative Societies Lucknow and Ors., 1987 UPLBEC 456 (DB). This Court declined to interfere and exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case even though the petitioner had alleged violation of provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
11. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the services of the petitioner have been terminated on ground of loss of confidence but this Court may interfere in quantum of punishment being disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman.
12. This prayer cannot be acceded to as the law is settled that the labour court can interfere when the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the proved guilt and it may itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
13. In view of the fact that complete remedy is provided in statute this Court will not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and adjudicate upon questions of fact, which requires taking of evidence.
14. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
15. The petitioner may approach the labour court, if he so advise.