A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) EVEN according to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has a remedy by filing an application under Section 31 (3) 9f the M. P. Industrial Relations Act for his grievances for which this petition has been filed. ( 2 ) WHEN a particular Act as in this case m. P. I. R. Act provides for particular statutory remedy to be gone into by particular forum prescribed in the Act, writ is not an appropriate remedy to be entertained or encouraged. It is much more so when under the aforesaid Act a right of appeal is also given against a verdict given by the Labour Court. Indeed, in this particular matter, the petitioner had earlier gone to a Labour Court and eventually succeeded. If he has a fresh cause of action in relation to implementation of the orders passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the industrial Court, fresh application on the basis of fresh cause of action can always be filed 1 before the Labour Court under M. P. Industrial relations Act. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the petitioner is due to retire shortly and since proceedings before the labour Court may consume more time than the writ petition in the High Court and it is for this reason the petitioner has chosen this time to come to High Court rather than to go to the labour Court. The submissions for invoking writ jurisdiction is misconceived. A litigant cannot choose forum according to his whims and convenience. Merely because the petitioner feels that he is due to retire shortly and Labour court may consume more time and hence writ petition be entertained cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is found to be devoid of substance and is not liable to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate application before labour Court under Section 31 (3) ibid for ventilating his grievances which was raised in this writ petition. .