SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No. 535 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. The challenge in this petition is made to an order dated 26.11.2024, passed by the Assistant Labour Commission/ Inspector under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Court on 20.02.2025 wanted the learned State Counsel to get instruction as to who is the appellate authority? Today, learned State Counsel gives a statement that the Rules made under the Act, provides for appellate forum and as per Rule 11 of the Rules, the appeal may be preferred before the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had tried to file the appeal before the Commissioner, but it was not taken. Since a statement has been given on behalf of the State that the Commissioner is the appellate authority, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The petitioner may very well prefer an appeal in view of Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act, before the Labour Commissioner, who shall entertain it and decide it in accordance with law. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 03.03.2025 Avneet/