1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2008 Gunvanti Hiranand Manglani. ..Petitioner. V/s. Gaurav Engineering Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.N.M.Ganguli for petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Gehani for respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 25, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 25, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 25, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Respondents on the ground that the Petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy, which in fact is a statutory remedy provided by the Act of filing revision before the Industrial Court. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the remedy of revision is not efficacious remedy for which reason, the Petitioner has been advised to file present Writ Petition. 3. I find no merits in the stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner. If there is statutory remedy provided, it is but appropriate that said remedy is 2 exhausted, instead of filing Writ Petition. In my opinion, the argument that the remedy of revision is not an efficacious and is restricted one is devoid of merits. 4. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file revision application. 5. As the Respondents have no objection for permitting the Petitioner to adopt that course, accordingly, the Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy, as may be permissible by law. All question on merits be considered in the said proceeding. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)