IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16684 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 31.03.2010 Bimla Devi and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that remedy of appeal provided under the Statute was available to the petitioner which has not been availed of by her and, therefore, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners cannot be entertained. Counsel for the petitioners states that she would avail of the alternative remedy of filing the appeal. However, she contends that under a bona fide belief, the present writ petition was filed and, therefore, the period spent by the petitioner to pursue this writ petition may not be taken into consideration while calculating the delay for filing the appeal. She prays that the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before this court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The present writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's C.W.P.No.16684 of 2009 -2- Compensation Act. The period spent while pursuing the remedy of writ petition, shall not be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is clarified that no opinion on the question of delay has been expressed by this Court and it would be open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay by putting-forth the reasons whichever is available to them in the said application. March 31, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE