IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 8 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2009 HEMANT KAMBLI ... Applicant Versus MUTHAPPA AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P. H. Parab, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 24th April, 2009 P.C. Heard with consent of parties. 2. The petition has been dismissed after noticing that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available in the matter. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that authority of Bijapur could have not taken cognizance without complying the requirements of Sections 20 and 21 of The Workmen's Compensation Act and hence the judgment delivered by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction. He further contends that the cause of action has accrued in territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the accident has occurred at Pernem and the Commissioner of Labour at Goa was therefore competent forum. 4. We are, satisfied that no reasons for review are being made out as it cannot be said that the order of Commissioner at Bijapur has been passed in breach of natural justice. The contention that the petitioner was not served with notice can be taken before the Appellate forum while challenging judgment delivered by the said Commissioner under Section 30 of The Workmen's Compensation Act. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. The prayer to recall the impugned order dated 9.2.2009 and to restore the Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. at*