HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the orders dated 26. 5. 2006 and 26. 7. 2006, passed by the respondent no. 1, whereunder the respondent no. 1/ Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities refused to pass an order on the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that irrespective of the pendency of the aforesaid matter before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela, respondent no. 1 was under an obligation to entertain the application of the petitioner by exercising powers vested in him under Section 59 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' ). A perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner in his representation to respondent no. 1 shows that directions were sought from respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2/ management to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the pending dispute with the management pertains to an approval application filed by the management under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has taken a ground with regard to his disability to the extent of 40% as available to him under Section 47 of the act. Despite the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings, the petitioner has sought the intervention of respondent no. 1 which has been refused and so conveyed in the two communications. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the representations made to respondent No. 1 on which the orders were passed by respondent no. 1 to the effect that the office of respondent no. 1 cannot interfere in the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the matter. It is evident that the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act has been set into motion by the respondent/ management. In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the termination order passed by the respondent no. 2/ management, a remedy is available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act. To say that a remedy is available to him only under the Act is misconceived. In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the termination order passed by the respondent no. 2/ management, a remedy is available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act. To say that a remedy is available to him only under the Act is misconceived. ( 4 ) IT may also be noticed that counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 59 of the Act, which provides for the Chief Commissioner, on his own motion, or on an application of the aggrieved person, to look into the complaints with respect to the matter relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and non- implementation of relevant laws, rules orders, instructions etc. for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities. Counsel for the petitioner relies on clause b of Section 59 of the Act to state that the petitioner who is a disabled person has been deprived of his rights. However, a perusal of the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, particularly, the prayer made therein does not reflect the same. The only prayer made in the representation to respondent no. 1 is to direct respondent No. 2, management to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. This prayer squarely falls within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act. Nothing precludes the petitioner from invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to seek his remedies as may be available to him. As noted above, the petitioner has already taken a plea under Section 47 of the Act in the matter pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the prayer of the petitioner is declined. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.