S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) SRI V. B Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not pressing the allegations made against the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition as well as in Civil Misc. Application No. 69036 of 2005 and civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 69038 of 2005 and the affidavit accompanying the said applications, at this stage, and, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to delete the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from the array of parties in the Writ Petition as also in Civil Misc. Application No. 64899 of 2005 accompanying the Writ Petition. ( 2 ) IN view of the statement made by Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to delete the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 from the array of parties in the Writ Petition as well as in Civil Misc. Application no. 64899 of 2005 accompanying the Writ Petition Let necessary amendments be made on or before 6th April, 2005. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the learned counsel for the Respondent No 4 are agreed that the Writ Petition itself may be disposed of, at this stage. ( 4 ) THE present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 24th February, 2005 (Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition)and the order dated 2nd March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (A. A. I. F. R.) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985 (in short "sica") ( 5 ) BY the aforementioned Civil Misc Amendment Application No. 69038 of 2005, the petitioner has further challenged the order dated 11th March, 2005 (Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit accompanying the said Amendment Application) ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned that as regards the aforesaid order dated 2nd March, 2005, it has, inter-alia, been stated in paragraph 40 of the Writ Petition that the copy of the said order has not been made available to the petitioner as yet. ( 7 ) IT appears that against the order dated 15th November, 2002 passed by the Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B. I. F. R.) (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) on a reference made by M/s Swadeshi Polytex Limited (Respondent No. 3 in the present Writ petition) under Section 15 (1) of the SICA, an appeal being Appeal No. 6 of 2003 was filed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (A. A. I. F. R.)under Section 25 of the SICA. ( 8 ) IT further appears that certain orders were passed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely payment of Wages) Act, 1978 for payment of wages to the workmen of M/s Swadeshi Polytex ltd. (Respondent No. 3 in the present Writ Petition ). ( 9 ) IT further appears that various Writ Petitions were filed before this Court in respect of the recovery proceedings pursuant to the said orders passed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. ( 10 ) IT further appears that by an order dated 13th January, 2005, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petitions Copy of the said order dated 13th January, 2005 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition ( 11 ) IT further appears that against the said order dated 13th January, 2005 passed by the Division bench of this Court in the said Writ Petitions, M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. (Respondent No. 4 in the present Writ Petition) filed Special Leave petitions being Special leave Petition Nos. 2057 to 2059 of 2005 before the Supreme Court, The averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 14 of the Writ Petition. ( 12 ) DURING the course of arguments, Photostat copies of the certified copies of the orders passed in the said Special Leave Petitions have been produced before this Court. ( 13 ) FROM a perusal of the said Photostat copies of the certified copies of the said orders, it appears that on 7th February 2005, their Lordships of the Supreme Court passed an order directing the petitioner (M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.) (Respondent No. 4 in the present writ Petition) for producing a sum of Rupees Five Cores in the form of Bank Draft in favour of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India. ( 14 ) IT was further observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said order dated 7th february, 2005 that "in default of production of Rupees Five Cores, as directed, the Special leave Petition will stand dismissed " ( 15 ) IT further appears that on 14th February 2005, their Lordships of the Supreme Court passed an order dismissing the said Special Leave Petitions filed by the said M/s Paharpur Cooling towers Ltd. (Respondent No. 4 in the present Writ Petition) ( 16 ) IT further appears that on 23rd February 2005, M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. (Respondent No. 4 in the present Writ Petition) filed two Misc. Applications in the said Appeal no. 6 of 2003 before the A. A. I. F. R. , inter-alia, praying for grant of interim reliefs, as mentioned in the said applications. The said applications have been filed as Annexures 6 and 7 to the Writ petition ( 17 ) IT further appears that on 24th February 2005, the A. A. I. F. R. passed an interim order, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition, as mentioned above. ( 18 ) IT further appears that the petitioner herein filed objections dated 1/2- 03-2005 against the said Misc. Applications filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 before the A. A. I. F. R. Copy of the said objections has been filed as Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition. ( 19 ) IT further appears that the Respondent No. 3 also filed its objections dated 2nd March, 2005 against the said Misc Applications filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 before the A. A. I. F. R. . Copy of the said objections dated 2nd March, 2005, filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, has been filed as Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition. ( 20 ) IT further appears that an application for with-drawal of appeal was also filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 before the A. A. I. F. R. Copy of the said application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has been filed as Annexure 11 to the Writ Petition. ( 20 ) IT further appears that an application for with-drawal of appeal was also filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 before the A. A. I. F. R. Copy of the said application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has been filed as Annexure 11 to the Writ Petition. ( 21 ) IT further appears that on 11th March 2005, the A. A. I. F. R. passed an order purporting to be clarification of the earlier interim order Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure 6 to the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid Civil Misc Amendment Application No. 69038 of 2005. ( 22 ) I have heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pushkar mehrotra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 ( 23 ) SRI V. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions : 1- Misc. Applications filed before the A. A. I F. R. (Annexures 6 and 7 to the Writ Petition) on 23rd February 2005 did not disclose the fact of dismissal of the said Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court. This amounts to Contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Sri Singh places reliance in this regard on the decision in Afzal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , (1996) 7 SCC 397 . 2- Oral objection pointing out the fact of dismissal of the said Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court, was raised on behalf of the petitioner before the A. A. I. F. R. on 24-02-2005 but the A. A. I F. R. did not consider the said oral objection. Reference in this regard made by Sri V. B. Singh to the averments made in paragraph 26 of the writ Petition. 3- The interim order dated 11th March, 2005 passed by the A. A. I. F. R. (Annexure 6 to the affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 69038 of 2005 was without jurisdiction as the A. A. I. F. R. had no jurisdiction to stay the recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders passed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of wages) Act, 1978. Amendment Application No. 69038 of 2005 was without jurisdiction as the A. A. I. F. R. had no jurisdiction to stay the recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders passed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of wages) Act, 1978. 4- The interim order dated 11th March, 2005 was passed ex-parte as the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before passing the said order dated 11th March, 2005. 5- The said appeal being Appeal No. 6 of 2003 filed before the A. A. I. F. R. under Section 25 of the SICA was not maintainable. 6- In view of the dismissal of the said Special Leave Petitions by their Lordships of the Supreme court on account of non-compliance with the conditions laid down in the order dated 7th february, 2005 passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it was not open to the a. A. I. F. R. to pass any interim order in the matter. 7- The A. A. I. F. R. passed the said blanket stay orders, and it failed to appreciate that their lordships of the Supreme Court imposed conditions regarding production of Rupees Five Cores in the form of Bank Draft in the said Special Leave Petitions. ( 24 ) IN reply, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions : 1- The present Writ Petition is directed against the interim order passed by the A. A. I. F. R. , and as such the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Elaborating his submissions, Sri Ravi Kant submits that the petitioner has already filed objections (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition) against the Misc. Applications filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 before the A. A. I. F. R. Further, the respondent No. 3 has also filed objections (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) against the said misc. Applications filed before the A. A. I. F. R. As the petitioner is availing of alternative remedy before the A. A. I. F. R. by filing the said objections, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that all the objections sought to be raised by the petitioner before this court may be raised before the A. A. I. F. R. , and, therefore, no interference is called for by this court, at this stage. It is further submitted that all the objections sought to be raised by the petitioner before this court may be raised before the A. A. I. F. R. , and, therefore, no interference is called for by this court, at this stage. It is further submitted by Sri Ravi Kant that factual controversy is involved in the matter, and the writ jurisdiction is not proper forum for deciding such factual controversy. In support his submissions, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions : (a) Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U. P. and Ors. v. Sahngoo ram Arya and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 521 . (b) National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra South) Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank and Anr. , (2000) 10 SCC 592 . (c) Tata Finance Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Biswal and Ors. , (2000) 9 SCC 238 . 2- Appeal under Section 25 of the SICA may be filed by "any person aggrieved" by an order of the B. I. F. R. ; as such, the appeal filed at the instance of the Respondent No. 4 before the a. A. I. F. R. would be maintainable as the Respondent No. 4 is a "person aggrieved by the order of the B. I. F. R dated 15th November, 2002. 3- The scope of enquiry in the proceedings before the A. A. I. F. R. is different from the scope of the said Writ Petitions, which had been dismissed by this Court in respect of the recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders passed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of wages) Act, 1978. Similarly, the scope of enquiry in the proceedings before the A. A. I. F. R. is different from the scope of the said Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order dated 13th January, 2005 passed by this Court in the said Writ Petitions as also the dismissal of the said Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court on 14th February, 2005 would not come in the way of the Respondent No. 4 in seeking interim relief before the a. A. I. F. R. 4- The fact of the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions, though not mentioned in the Misc. Applications filed on 23rd February, 2005, was brought on the record on 7th March, 2005 by a detailed affidavit filed before the A. A. I. F. R. ( 25 ) IN rejoinder, Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has reiterated his earlier submissions ( 26 ) SRI Singh has further pointed out that copy of the affidavit, stated to have been filed before the A. A. I. F. R. on 7th March, 2005 on behalf of the Respondent No 4, was not supplied to the petitioner. ( 27 ) SRI Singh further submits that in the objections (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition), prayer was made for vacating the interim order dated 24th February 2005. As the order dated 11th March, 2005 was passed without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, the submission proceeds, the petitioner could not get opportunity to seek vacation of the said order dated 11th march, 2005 ( 28 ) SRI Singh has further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. , AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22. ( 29 ) IT is submitted by Sri Singh that in case, the order is without jurisdiction, the alternative remedy would not be a bar to invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. ( 30 ) I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 31 ) FROM the narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner has already filed objections (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition) before the A. A. I. F. R. , inter-alia, raising various objections, which have also been sought to be raised before this Court. In the said objections, the petitioner has made prayer for vacating the interim order dated 24th February 2005. In the said objections, the petitioner has made prayer for vacating the interim order dated 24th February 2005. ( 32 ) FURTHER, the Respondent No. 3 has also filed its objections (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition)before the A. A. I. F. R. The Respondent No. 3 has also filed an application for withdrawal of appeal (Annexure 11 to the Writ Petition) before the A. A. I. F. R. ( 33 ) IT is thus evident that the petitioner has already approached the A. A. I. F. R. raising various objections against the grant of interim order in favour of the Respondent No. 4 and also praying for vacating the interim order passed by the A. A. I. F. R. ( 34 ) AS the petitioner is already pursuing its remedy before the A. A. I. F. R. by filing objections and seeking vacation of interim order passed by the A. A. I. F. R. , I am of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court at this stage, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 35 ) IT is true that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and there are well known exceptions when the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of india despite the existence of alternative remedy. [see Whirlpool Corporation Case (Supra ). Also see : Naresh Chandra Gupta v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and ors. , 2003 A. L. J. 1812]. ( 36 ) HOWEVER, in the facts and circumstances in the present case, I am of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner, who has already availed of alternative remedy before the a. A. I. F. R. , should pursue the said remedy before the A. A. I. F. R. ( 37 ) AT the same there, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is necessary that the interim matter should be considered and decided by the a. A. I. F. R. expeditiously and within a particular period. ( 38 ) IN the circumstances, without going into the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties before this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions (i) The parties will appear before the A. A. I. F. R. on 11th April 2005. (ii) It will be open to the parties to file any further pleadings and documents before the a. A. I. F. R. in regard to the interim matter on 11th April 2005. (iii) The A. A. I. F. R. will, thereafter, proceed to consider and decide the interim matter after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned expeditiously, and in any case, on or before 28th April, 2005. (iv) The A. A. I. F. R. will specifically deal with all the objections and pleas raised by the parties concerned including the petitioner while deciding the interim matter. ( 39 ) IT is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the question of grant of interim relief or otherwise, as the said matter is to be decided by the A. A. I. F. R. ( 40 ) COPY of this order will be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by 6th April 2005. . .