IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1154 OF 2009 Subramanian V. Iyer ... Petitioner Vs. National Aviation India Company Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for the petitioner. Mr. Mayuresh Shetty i/by Mr. M.V. Kini for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent and declaring that petitioner is entitled to the difference in the payment of gratuity and arrears of wages as per the settlement with the recognized Cabin Crew Associations in September, 2007 and May/June, 2009 and that the respondent should be directed to issue air passages as per the Air India Passage Regulations. 2. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 2nd August, 1990 and had taken out various proceedings. The petitioner thereafter approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition No.3242 of 1990. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 30th August, 2002. The Division Bench dealing with the matter set aside the order of dismissal and granted certain reliefs. 3. It is not necessary for us to refer to them in greater detail but it is stated before us that the said judgment has attained finality between the parties. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a writ petition in this court being Writ Petition No.276 of 2009 which was disposed of by the court requiring the respondent to consider the claim raised by the petitioner. The respondent vide their letter dated 5th May, 2009 rejected the claim of the petitioner. There is no challenge to that order before us in the present writ petition. 5. It is settled principle of law that all the reliefs that are available to a litigant should be claimed by him when he takes out the proceedings. Any reliefs which were available and not being asked for shall be deemed to have been waived. The applied principles of Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. in regard to abandonment of claim are applicable to writ jurisdiction as well. 6. It is equally a settled principle that what is prayed before the court and is not granted shall be deemed to have been rejected. In the light of these two settled principles, the petitioner cannot claim any of the reliefs except what was given to him by the order of the Division Bench dated 30th August, 2002 passed in Writ Petition No.3242 of 1990. 7. In the present writ petition, there is hardly any challenge to an order and in any case, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner, if at all, would be to pray for computation of the benefits given in the order of the Division Bench by invoking the jurisdiction under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. Dismissed. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.