IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9996 of 2011 Rajendra Prasad, son of Gato Singh, Resident of village Aknar, P.S. Hisua, Nalanda ….Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna through its Administrator 2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna 3. The Divisional Manager Gaya Depot, Gaya 4. The Depot Manager, Aurangabad …Respondents For the petitioner :M/s Devendra Pd. Singh, Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent-Corporation :Mr.S.R.Sharma ----------- 03. 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟). Petitioner while serving the Corporation was afflicted with punishment on conclusion of departmental proceeding levied against him by order dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure-5). Said order is under challenge. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short „the Act) and, as such, he has alternative remedy by raising the dispute in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that this Court in Birendra Mishra vs. State of Bihar [2009(2) PLJR 361], entertained such application and granted relief. He relies on paragraph 7. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the particular facts of the case, said writ application was entertained. Paragraph 7 of Birendra Mishra (supra) reads as under: “7. It was also urged at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ application ought not to be maintained because the petitioner has statutory remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court does not dispute the provision of law in this regard, but keeping in mind that the matter relates to the year 1990 and the order of dismissal came to be passed in 2001, which was immediately challenged by filing the present writ application in the year 2001 and is being finally heard and decided in the year 2009, it will be unfair to the petitioner to relegate him to the Labour Court or non-suit him for existence of an alternative remedy.” It would thus appear that the matter remained pending before this Court for more than eight years and at the time of final disposal of the case, said issue was raised and considering that aspect of the matter, this court entertained the writ application in stead of relegating the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is not the case here. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the case of Birendra Mishra(supra) would not be applicable. This Court may add that the Act is a self- contained Act and effective relief can be granted to the petitioner if a case for such relief is made out. 3 This Court, in view of the fact that petitioner has statutory remedy to ventilate his grievance(s), declines to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction . At this stage Mr. Devendra Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute which the petitioner would raise under the Act may be barred by limitation. The petitioner would be well-advised to file appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, if any, on the ground that he had been bona fidely pursuing his remedy before this Court. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid direction/observation. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )