R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens compensation Act, 1923, I do not find it a fit case for interference. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that this petition has been filed challenging the order rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN my opinion, on this basis the writ petition cannot be entertained as on the appellate side, this Court may be entitled to look into the facts and circumstances in which the order was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is rejected. .