1. The petitioner has questioned the order/ award dated 27th of January, 2007 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anantnag, in a claim petition titled Mohammad Maqbool Mantoo Vs. Director Horticulture and another, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. In terms of CMP No.450/2007, the claimants-applicants before the Labour Court, came to be arrayed as parties in the array of respondents and it also came to be treated as reply to the writ petition. 3. Mr. Aijaz, learned counsel for the respondents argued that writ petition is not maintainable because alternate efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner. While developing his arguments, he argued that the writ petitioner could have questioned the impugned award/ order by the medium of an appeal subject to depositing the entire awarded amount, to obtain a certificate and to annex it with the appeal. 4. It is a fact that in order to maintain an appeal against the impugned award, the writ petitioner had to deposit the entire amount and had to obtain a certificate from the concerned authority and thereafter had to file appeal along with the said certificate. Otherwise the appeal is in-effective, incomplete, incompetent and defective. 5. The writ petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy available and thus writ petition is not maintainable. Divisional Bench of this court in case (LPA No. 173/2007) titled Western Bus Service Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors, decided on 16.10.2007 has taken the same view. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of the said judgment herein: "In a more recent decision in A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel, (2006)5 SCC 469, a case arising under the labour law, the Supreme Court once again re-affirmed the same legal position, making reference to the earlier decisions in U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. V. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam, (2004) 4 SCC 268; Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, (195) 5 SCC 75; Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad, (2002) 2 SCC 542; Scooters India v. Vijai E. V. Eldred, (1998) 6 SCC 549 and Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., (1964) 6 SCR 913. The decision reiterates the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out." 6. The decision reiterates the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out." 6. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgment (supra), this writ petition is not maintainable, as such, dismissed along with all connected CMPs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available under law.