JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the award dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Nadaun, in case No. 2/1996. 2. A preliminary question about the maintainability of the present petition arose because of the alternative remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is not in dispute that the statute provides the remedy of an appeal to the party aggrieved by the award passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, as is the award sought to be quashed and set aside by this petition. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already challenged the award by way of an appeal which is pending disposal. Against this background, the question, which arises for determination, is as to whether in view of the pendency of the appeal against the award assailed in this petition, the present petition is maintainable. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is maintainable being alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Whereas, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, because of the pendency of the statutory appeal against the award, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. At the time of arguments, it was fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grounds assailing the award as urged in the present petition could have been and have been urged by the petitioner in the appeal and the concerned appellate authority is competent to hear and decide such questions and the scope of enquiry in the appeal is more than in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled that so long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior Court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise the power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings in such Court. 8. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submissions, the Apex Court held as under : "26. 8. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submissions, the Apex Court held as under : "26. In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior Court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise the power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior Court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded." It was further held as under : "38(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of injustice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis" 9. In view of the above legal position and the pendency of the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, this is not a fit case to exercise the powers of superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227. 10. As a result, this petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of this petition will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petition dismissed. -