HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No.17335 of 1993 Between: G.V.Raja Sekhar Babu … Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others. …Respondents. :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Panduranga Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: Sri K.Mohana Rami Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Co- operation. 10th FEBRUARY 2006 This is a petition for quashing order dated 8-2-1986 passed by District Collector, Srikakulam (respondent No.2) whereby he terminated the petitioner’s services from the post of Supervisor. After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise an industrial dispute because Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited falls within the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) and the petitioner falls within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). In my opinion, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable and merits acceptance, because in Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke and State of Rajasthan v. Krishan Kant Tiwari, the Supreme Court has taken the view that the remedy is available to a workman to challenge the termination of his service by raising an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) read with Section 2A of the Act and such remedy is an effective alternative remedy. For the reason stated above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. It is hoped that the demand made by the petitioner for reference of the dispute relating to termination of his service will be considered and decided by the competent authority keeping in view the fact that the writ petition filed by him remained pending before the High Court for over twelve years. G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. 10th February, 2006. ARS / svs