Judgment :- The Hon'ble Chief Justice: This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 17.12.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the demand notice issued under section 45(B) of the Employees State Insurance Act. In our opinion, the petitioner/appellant has a clear alternative remedy of filing an application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Employees State Insurance Court. We cannot approve this kind of practice of directly filing writ petition in this Court when a clear alternative remedy is available. We have repeatedly held in Indian Additives Limited v. Indian Additives Employees Union, 2005 Writ L.R. 22 and in Madura Sugars Staff Union & others v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 Writ L.R. 25 that when alternative remedy is available ordinarily that must be availed of. That is the settled legal principle that has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, 1976 I SCC 496, The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1 , and U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & others v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karamchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268 . 3. Hence we dismiss the writ appeal and also the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Employees State Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. 4. If the appellant files an application under Section 75 of the Act within one month from today, the same will be entertained by the E.S.I Court without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided expeditiously thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned without being influenced by the judgment of the learned single Judge. Consequently, WAMP No.1570 of 2005 is also dismissed.