CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions are against the awards passed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation. ( 2 ) THE contesting respondents in these writ petitions raised a contention that as against the award passed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation, no writ petition is maintainable under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under the workmen's compensation Act, 1923 and also on the ground that there is no remedy of appeal available to the insurance company on the defences other than those available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the insurance company by placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of new India assurance company limited, davangere v raja naika and another1, has submitted that as against an award passed under the workmen's compensation act the insurance company cannot maintain an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act if the case is not 1. 1992 (2) kar. L. j. 672 : 1992 ACJ 521 (kar.) : ILR 1992 kar. 1325 founded on the ground on which the insurer was entitled to defend under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, since the insurance company is left with no remedy of appeal can maintain a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. It is further submitted that the power conferred on the high court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction and that power cannot be limited by any statute and therefore, the impugned orders are amenable to judicial review under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners in support of their contention relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Milan rani saha v new India assurance company limited, agartala and others1. In the said case the gauhati high court has held that a petition for judicial review under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an award of the tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the insurer on the grounds other than those mentioned under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No doubt the power conferred on the high court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be limited by any statute. Wherever the high court finds that the orders passed by the subordinate court or authority is in violation of the statute, it may interfere with the said order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. But, in the case on hand there is no complaint of violation of any statute so as to warrant interference by this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. Further, when the workmen's compensation act provides for an effective remedy of appeal under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation Act, there is no reason for this court to interfere with the said award in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Mere alternative remedy of appeal may not be a bar to exercise power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. But, normally when the remedy of appeal is provided, this court has to decline to exercise power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act reads as follows. "30. Appeals. But, normally when the remedy of appeal is provided, this court has to decline to exercise power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act reads as follows. "30. Appeals. (1) an appeal shall lie to the high court from the following orders of a commissioner, namely (a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (b) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-a; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the Provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the commissioner, or in which the order of the commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to be the parties: provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against". from the reading of the above said Section it is clear that in order to maintain an appeal against the award of the commissioner the aggrieved person shall satisfy that there is a substantial question of law which requires consideration by the high court. Further, the aggrieved person is required to file appeal within the period of limitation prescribed. Insofar as invoking of writ jurisdiction is concerned, no such limitations are there. Further, the aggrieved person is required to file appeal within the period of limitation prescribed. Insofar as invoking of writ jurisdiction is concerned, no such limitations are there. ( 5 ) IN all these cases, the insurance companies have challenged the award not on any of the defences available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As stated earlier this court in raja naika's case, supra, has taken a view that even if the proceedings arise under the workmen's compensation Act, the insurance company has no right to contest the claim on any of the defences other than the defences available to it under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of these decisions the insurance company cannot maintain an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act on any of the defences other than the defences available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 6 ) MERE error of law or irregularity in passing the award itself is not a ground to interfere with the said award by the high court in an appeal filed under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act if there is no substantial question of law involved for consideration. Further, it is also not appropriate for the high court to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution of India if no relief could be granted in an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of santosh kumar and others v central warehousing corporation and another1, has held as follows. "in our view there cannot be any possible doubt that the scheme of the act is that, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by the collector under Section 11 of the act may not be questioned in any proceeding either by the government or by the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made. Section 50 (2) and Section 25 lead to that inevitable conclusion. Surely what may not be done under the Provisions of the act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226. Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the Provisions of the statute. Surely what may not be done under the Provisions of the act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226. Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the Provisions of the statute. When Section 50 (2) expressly bars the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made from demanding a reference under Section 18 of the Act, notwithstanding that such company or local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the collector, and when Section 25 expressly prohibits the court from reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the reference under Section 18, it is clearly not permissible for the company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 to challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the collector and to have it reduced". though the said case arises under the Land Acquisition Act, the law declared by the Supreme Court is equally applicable to the facts of these cases. Here also the impugned awards are passed under the Provisions of the workmen's compensation act. As against the said awards the petitioners cannot maintain an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the workmen's compensation act either on account of the fact that there is no substantial question of law involved or on account of the fact that they could not prefer an appeal on any of the defences other than the defences available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this court to give any relief in a writ petition as the petitioners could not get any relief by way of preferring appeal under the workmen's compensation act. ( 8 ) THE jurisdiction conferred on the high court under article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to grant relief wherever the subordinate courts or authorities act in violation of any statute. But, keeping in view the relevant legislation in limiting the right of appeal of the insurance company and also in view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy of appeal, i find no reason to entertain these writ petitions. ( 9 ) THIS court in the case of national insurance company limited and others1, has also taken the similar view which I have taken above. ( 9 ) THIS court in the case of national insurance company limited and others1, has also taken the similar view which I have taken above. Hence, i pass the following order. Writ petitions are rejected. --- *** --- .