MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was working as a chargeman b in the Railways, was found guilty of various charges and was removed from service by an order dated 31-3-1993. His dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative tribunal in O. A. No. 1547 of 1993. The tribunal went into the entire aspects and found that the order of dismissal is not in accordance with the Rules and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal further permitted the respondents to hold further enquiry, if they desire so. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in the post as such and he has been continuing in the said post. ( 2 ) LATER his claim for further promotion to the post of Chargeman a fell for consideration. For unjustified reasons, the respondents denied such promotion, which necessitated the petitioner to move the tribunal in O. A. No. 1349 of 1995. The matter was contested by the Respondents. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the entire material placed before it, accepted the version of the Respondents and dismissed the O. A. , by an order dated 27-1-1997. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the o. A. No. 1349 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by way of a Review Application in R. A. No, 31 of 1997 seeking to review its order on various grounds. The Tribunal considered the relief in the said application and came to the conclusion that there was no justifying grounds shown by the petitioner warranting review of its earlier order and while holding so the review application was disposed of on 19-06-1997, against which order the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. N. Rushendra Reddy for petitioner. ( 4 ) IN L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India the Supreme Court examined the jurisdiction of the High Court for adjudicating the dispute regarding the service matters and allied matters and held that the Tribunals are the first forums for adjudication of the disputes and it is only when the parties exhausted the said remedy in the first forum, they are entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is clear that the party, in the first instance, shall approach the Administrative Tribunal or such forums and then only it is entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IN this case, as to the promotion of the petitioner, the petitioner had challenged the inaction of the respondents before the administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1349 of 1995, which was dismissed on 27-1-1997. Later, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by way of R. A. No, 31 of 1997 seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal in the O. A. dated 27-1-1997. The Tribunal refused to review its earlier order on the ground that the petitioner has not shown any genuine reasons. Since the Tribunal has refused to review its earlier order, the petitioner cannot now have a grievance against the tribunal order and is not entitled to approach this Court directly, in the sense, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme court in Chandra Kumar s case (supra), the earlier order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his main claim dates back to 27-1-1997. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, if at all the petitioner has any grievance against that order, the petitioner would necessarily has to approach the Supreme Court. In case, if the tribunal had acted upon the review application and had revised the order, for an aggrieved party fresh cause of action is always available and such aggrieved party could approach this Court. Such an action is as per the law laid down by the Supreme court in Chandra Kumar s case (supra ). The facts are different here. The Tribunal has refused to review its earlier order dated 27-1-1997 which is passed prior to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandra kumar s case (supra ). We are, therefore, of the view, no cause of action arose to the petitioner to knock at the doors of this court and we dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs.