IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16313 of 2010 GORELAL SINGH , SON OFLATE KAPILDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAJWARA, P.S. SURYAGARHA, P.O. PAWAY DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIOIN PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAVAN, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD DDDDDTRANSPSORT CORPORATION PARIWAHAN, BHHAVAN, PATNA. 4. SMT. ASHA SINHA, SPECIAL OFFICER,(SPECIAL WORK)CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPSORT CORPORATION PATNA. 5. SRI RAM VILASH RAM, DIVISIONAL MANAGER-CUM- ENQUIRY OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUZAFFARUR DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. SRI MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA, TRAFFIC INSPECTOR CUM.CHECKING OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 7. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, B.S.R.T.C., PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 8. THE DIPO SUPERINTENDENT, B.S.R.T.C., BANKIPUR DIPO, PATNA. ----------- 03. 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Corporation ). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as conductor is aggrieved by office order No.611 dated 28.06.2010, Annexure-9 passed by the Administrator of the Corporation, whereunder he has been dismissed from service of the corporation on the charge of carrying unbooked passenger in the 2 bus. Against the dismissal order dated 28.6.2010 petitioner has remedy before the Labour Court, Patna in terms of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the provisions contained in standing order of the Corporation. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, with reference to the two judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJANA M. WIG (Ms) Versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD reported in (2005) Volume 8 SCC 242 and in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd & Anr. Versus Jahan Khan reported in (2007) Volume 6 SCC 172 submitted that alternative remedy is not absolute bar for this Court to entertain the writ petition against the dismissal order. In this connection, he also pointed out with reference to the findings recorded in the enquiry report that the findings been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer without granting the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced during the enquiry. He also submitted that petitioner is to superannuate shortly and in appreciation of the aforesaid two submissions, this Court should entertain the writ petition without asking the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. 3 4. I am not inclined to exercise my extra ordinarily jurisdiction at this stage. Petitioner should avail the alternative remedy before the Labour Court, Patna in terms of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the impugned dismissal order and if the relief prayed for in the writ petition are not granted by the Labour Court, then come to this Court. The writ application as framed is dismissed. M.I. HAQUE ( V.N. Sinha, J )