( 1 ) SHOULD this court interfere with an order of dismissal passed against an employee who has a remedy available to him under the industrial disputes Act, against such a dismissal, is the short question that arises in this petition. Before proceeding any further however, it is appropriate to briefly state the facts in the background.

( 2 ) THE petitioner who was working as a steno grapher in the respondent-bank was charged with certain misconduct in the discharge of her official duties which resulted in the holding of a domestic enquiry against her. The inquiry officer appointed for this purpose recorded the statements of the witnesses produced before him and finally submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Based on the said report the petitioner was dismissed from service, which order of dismissal was challenged by way of a writ petition in this court. The writ petition was however, dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternate remedy by way of an appeal that was available to her under the service rules. The dismissal of the writ petition was questioned by her in a writ appeal which also came to be rejected. The petitioner, thereafter filed an appeal against her dismissal order which was dismissed by respondent no. 1 by his order dated 30th of july, 1993. It is against this order and that passed by respondent no. 2 on 6th of may, 1993, that the present writ petition has been filed by her inter alia on the ground that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent-bank was not properly conducted nor was she given a reasonable and fair opportunity of defending herself at the same.

( 3 ) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter traversing in detail the averments made in the writ petition.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. He argued that this court should not in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction interfere with the impugned orders keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available to her by way of a reference under section 10 of the industrial disputes act to the industrial tribunal. He submitted that the remedy available to a workman under the industrial disputes act was more comprehensive and efficacious in comparison to that available under the writ jurisdiction of this court. He argued that the labour court is not only entitled to go into the question of the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the management but also go into the merits of the charge framed against the petitioner in case it came to the conclusion that the enquiry had not been properly conducted. Alternatively it was submitted that, even if the enquiry was found by the labour court to have been validly conducted and the misconduct proved against her, the said court can go into the question of quantum of punishment imposed and interfere with the same under section 11-a of the act in case it was found that punishment imposed was excessive or incommunicate with the misconduct alleged. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution does not, contended the learned counsel, extend thus far, with the result that the alternate remedy was equally if not more efficacious and comprehensive as the one under Article 226.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner on the other handargued that the respondent-bank was wholly owned and controlled by the government; and was therefore an instrumentality of the state hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. That being so, the impugned order of dismissal could be examined by the court, and an appropriate writ issued to undo the wrong done to the petitioner. He submitted that once the court was certain about its jurisdiction to review the validity of the orders in question on whatever gr