O R D E R

The charge memo, dated 22.04.2021, issued by the second respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is working as Conductor in the respondent –

Transport Corporation. The service conditions of the workmen in the Transport Corporations are governed under the settlement made under Rule 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”). When the service conditions are governed under the settlement made under Rule 12(3) of the Act, the issues regarding disciplinary proceedings are to be adjudicated before the competent Labour Court by the aggrieved workman. When the workman is having an efficacious alternate remedy under the Act, High Court need not entertain a writ petition for adjudication of the disputed facts. Therefore, the writ petition need not be entertained as the petitioner is having alternate remedy under the Act.

3. The principles in this regard have been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of P.Muthukrishnan v. Management of T.N.S.T.C. (Madurai) Ltd., reported in 2019-IV-LLJ-152 (Mad) and the relevant portions of the said decision are extracted hereunder:

45.This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the power