JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this writ petition, a relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to regularize him in services.
3. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Field Assistant by respondent No. 2 on 1.1.1989 in Bareilly depot. He was transferred from Bareilly Depot to Khatima Depot, district Nainltal and worked there from 13.6.1989 to 30.6.1990. It is alleged that the post of Field Assistant was abolished by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 who directed respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner in some vacancy which is available. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 1.7.1990 directed the petitioner to work on a vacant post of chowkidar,
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that he rendered his services as chowkidar till 13.8.1991 and thereafter was transferred from Khatima to Pllibhit Headquarters by order dated 29th July, 1991.
5. The petitioner contends that he along with other similarly situated employees of the department who were working as daily wages employees of the department concerned represented the matter to the respondents for regularlzation of their services on the ground that they had completed 240 days of service. The matter was referred to the State Government but nothing was done.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that workers on daily wages are engaged only in the exigencies of the work and regular work is taken by permanent employees. It is next submitted that with the enforcement of the Government policy of stopping the felling of trees and in view of subsequent legislation i.e, Vanya Jeev (Sansodhan Act), 1991, the work of felling of the trees has reduced considerably with the result that there is no work for the dally wagers engaged by the Corporation and they became, surplus. It is submitted that it in these circumstances became necessary to retrench the daily wages workers and a decision has been taken by the Corporation and directions were issued on 14.5.1992 that in the first phase, the daily wagers engaged after 31.12.1988 shall be retrenched except the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
7. In pursuance of the directions aforesaid, a list was prepared by the answering respondents on 24.5.1992. The petitioner was also included in the list of employees to be retrenched due to non-availability of the work in the Corporation as he was appointed on 1.1.1989. It is submitted by the respondents that notice of retrenchment in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was sent to the petitioner along with one month's salary and retrenchment compensation but he refused to accept the same and concealing these material facts obtained an ex parte stay order on 4.6.1992 in the petition. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is not entitled to get any relief. The respondents deny that the petitioner was transferred to Pilibhit and contend that it was simply a case of change in his duties depending upon the availability of the work.
8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that for adjudication of the dispute involved in the present writ petition, oral and documentary evidence would be required. The adjudication of question of regularization falls within Item No. 6 of the First Schedule of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for which oral and documentary evidence would be required to be adduced. This Court cannot take such an exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and enter into arena of disputed questions of facts, therefore, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the labour court as has been held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow and Ors., 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 UPLBEC 898 and Scooters of India and Ors. v. Vijay E. V. Elder, 1998 SCC (L&S) 1611, wherein the Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the remedy before the labour court is more efficacious.
9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
However, it is directed that if the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will try to amicably settle the dispute under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately referred by the competent authority to the labour court for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the labour court in the manner and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, for filing written statements, rejoinders documents etc. If necessary, the proceedings may be held on day-to-day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules and the case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not beyond from the date of receipt of reference.
10. With aforesaid directions the petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.