JUDGMENT : S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. - In this set of two connected writ petitions it becomes unnecessary to delve into details for reason given hereinafter. The facts being closely similar-if not identical-may be noticed with brevity from C.W.J.C. no. 1515 of 1982. 2. The forty four petitioners herein were employed as casual labourers in the project of the conversion of the meter guage line into broad guage line from Sonepur of Barabanki in Varanasi Division of the North Eastern Railway. They claim to have been continuously so employed from different dates in year 1980. Their services were terminated with effect from the 15th April, 1982 by the impugned ORDER :of the Executive Engineer dated the 15th of March; 1982 (vide annexure 1). Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been preferred on the 14th April, 1982, primarily invoking the contravention of section 250 and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Later, the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union had prayed to be added as one of the petitioners to the "Hit application which was allowed by the ORDER :of this Court on the 14th of February, 1985. 3. These two petitions had originally come up for hearing before a Division Bench. In the wake of the Ful1 Bench JUDGMENT : in Dinesh Prasad Mandai and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (C.W.J.C. no. 5377 of 1983 decided on the 16th November, 1984) ( 1984 PLJR 1002 ) a preliminary objection was raised On behalf of the respondents that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act provide an adequate and efficacious legal remedy for the enforcement of created thereunder and the petitioners should first exhaust the remedies under the said 'Act before seeking relief in the Writ jurisdiction. Consequently, two significant questions namely whether the bar of an alternative statutory remedy would be attracted in the case of writ petitions which have already been admitted to hearing and as to the precise stage when a suitor can be said to have exhausted his statutory remedy under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, were referred for consideration by a larger Bench on the 28th of November, 1984. 4. It is common before us that all issues in these cases now stand eclipsed by the recent JUDGMENT :s of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav & ors. v. Union of India & ors. 4. It is common before us that all issues in these cases now stand eclipsed by the recent JUDGMENT :s of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav & ors. v. Union of India & ors. [ 1985 PLJR 36 (SC)] and Prahalat Singh and others v. Union of India etc. [ 1985 PLJR 39 (SC) Learned counsel are agreed that the cases of the petitioners are covered on all fours by the aforesaid JUDGMENT :s. In accordance therewith, we hereby direct the respondents to dispose of the cases of the petitioners in confirmity with the scheme prepared by the Railways for the, absorption of casual project labourers as modified by the JUDGMENT :s aforesaid and the directions given therein. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly and there will be no ORDER :as to cost.