JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Writ Appeal No. 197 of 2003 preferred by the applicant is barred by limitation by 281 days. The Advocate sent letters on 16.7.2002 and 5.10.2002 to the applicant informing her about the dismissal of the writ petition filed by her late husband and yet the appeal has been preferred on 1.5.2003. It is being alleged that the letters of the Advocate have not been received by the applicant. We find it difficult to believe the statement made by the applicant. Apart form this, we have considered the case on merit also. The applicant's husband, namely, late Bimal Kumar Das had challenged his dismissal from service by directly filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the Court holding that there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the workman of approaching the Industrial Court raising industrial dispute and on that ground the Court has refused to entertain the writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. It is settled principle of law that when there is efficacious alternative remedy, the aggrieved party should avail of that remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, We do not mean to say that in any circumstances the Court cannot exercise powers under Article226 of the Constitution. In the present case, it will be useless and waste of time in appreciating the matter in appeal when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the workman. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we do not find that cause of justice will be served by condoning the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Application dismissed