1. Petitioner has called in question award dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen's Compensation Act, District Pulwama, in case titled Bashir Ahmad Shah v. Nazir Ahmad Trumboo & another, in file No. 07/C/2003, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,18,236/- with 12% interest with effect from 25.03.2004 till realization came to be awarded in favour of respondent no. 2 and against the petitioner herein (for short, the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It is contended that respondent no. 1 herein had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, thus the award is nullity in the eyes of law and came to be passed without hearing the petitioner herein. 3. Respondent no. 2 has filed the reply resisting the writ petition. It is contended that if the writ petitioner was aggrieved of the impugned award, he had the efficacious alternate remedy in terms of the mandate of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, for short, the Act). Further, the writ petitioner has not reproduced section 21(b) of the Act in its entirety. In terms of section 21(b), a claim petition can be filed before the Commissioner within the area where the claimant or his legal heirs are residing Claimant-respondent no. 2 herein is resident of Larow, Kakpora, District Pulwama. Thus, the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Pulwama had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 4. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein, by the Commissioner, but he did not appear and exparte proceedings were drawn against him. 5. In terms of mandate of section 30 of the Act, if a person is aggrieved of the award, he can question the same by the medium of appeal, provided substantial question of law is involved. Admittedly, respondent Bashir Ahmad Shah is residing within the territorial limits of District Pulwama, thus respondent no. 1 herein has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Western Bus Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner & others, LPA No. 173/2007, decided on 16.10.2007, has held that when an alternate efficacious remedy is available, writ petition is not maintainable. It is apt to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the judgment herein. 1 herein has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Western Bus Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner & others, LPA No. 173/2007, decided on 16.10.2007, has held that when an alternate efficacious remedy is available, writ petition is not maintainable. It is apt to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the 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 reaffirmed 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, (1995) 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. In the case in hand there is absolutely no circumstance that may justify giving a go bye to the statutory remedy of appeal. Thus, on hearing Mr. Qayoom and on a careful consideration of the materials on record and the relevant case law, as discussed above, I am satisfied that the Writ Court rightly declined to interfere in the matter and left the appellant to seek its remedy as provided under the Act itself." 7. In the given circumstances, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed along with all CMPs. Interim direction stands vacated.