: 1 : wp.1146.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1146 OF 2010 Bharti A. Shirwadkar .. Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.K. Halwasia with Ms.S.S. Halwasia for the Petitioner Mr.A.D. Shetty with Rajinder Kumar for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Ms.Pooja Thorat with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Resp. No.3 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No.3 before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2006. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application on the ground that it was not maintainable inasmuch as Respondent No.3 was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. 2. As per respondent No.3, the petitioner was appointed as an adhoc clerk and on closure of the establishment i.e. the Regional : 2 : wp.1146.2010 Rehabilitation Training Centre, the available four employees were transferred to Respondent No.3 w.e.f. 1.3.2004. It is also admitted that from 4.8.1999 to 28.2.2004, the petitioner was employed with Respondent No.2 but on adhoc basis. It is further submitted that the other three employees were regular and the Petitioner being on adhoc employment could not get the benefit of absorption and, therefore, she was discontinued. 3. If that be so, the petitioner may have a more efficacious remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Hence, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)