1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.630/2007 Peacock Labour Union Vs. Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction & Anr. Date : 10.7.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. S.P. Sharma for the appellant. ----- Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we do not find any merit in this appeal. The petitioner has challenged the order of BIFR directly before this Court on the ground that before passing the order under challenge he has not been heard and the revival proposal of the sick industry submitted by the workers had not been considered in spite of directions of this Court issued in Writ Petition No.4833/2003 vide order dated 19.4.2004. The learned Single Judge has not exercised his discretion to entertain the petition on ground that he had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before AAFR under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies 2 (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner has contended before us that since the Tribunal has not acted in accordance with the direction of the Court and has not given effect to the direction of this Court availability of alternative remedy aught not to come in his way. We do not find any substance in the petition. The Tribunal had referred to order dated 19.4.2004 and had categorically stated that in response to that order dated 19.4.2004 case was considered in hearing held on 8.11.2004 and the Bench noted that no fully tied up rehabilitation proposal was submitted to the Board. Apparently, the proposal submitted by the petitioner union was not found viable by order dated 8.11.2004 which order has not been produced before us nor the same has been challenged. Since the proposal submitted by the petitioner had been rejected on 8.11.2004 which order is not before us. It also cannot be said that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. 3 Moreover all the grounds which have been raised before us can also very well be raised before the Appellate Authority as well as the grounds on merit of the rejection of their application. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that it was not a fit case to be entertained despite availability of the alternate remedy, more so when we find that only ground to bye pass the remedy of appeal is found to be not tenable by us Appeal is dismissed. [MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA],J. [RAJESH BALIA], Actg.C.J. babulal/