JUDGMENT N. L. Ganguly, J.- 1. These petition by Umesh Chandra Pandey and six others connected writ petition no. 30483 of 1990 by Pradeep Shangloo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and others and Writ Petition No. 29177 of 1990 U. P. Rajya Khanj Vikas Nigam Karamchari Sangh v. U. P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigain have been filed by the employees of the corporation for relief that an order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders for retrenchment of the petitioners be quashed. Further relief of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners on their respective posts and a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary to the petitioners on the basis of equal pay for equal work be given. The petitioners of the leading writ petition were appointed on various dates in the year 1981 and 1982 on the post of Office Assistant, Challan Supervisor, Despatch Superviser Chowkidar and peon, respectively. The other petitioners of the connected writ petition were appointed as Trading Munshi (clerk) at the office of the respondent no. 2 at Allahabad. The third petition is on behalf of Union of employees. They had been receiving consolidated salary but were not made regular employees of the Corporation. They had been working with the Corporation for several years and, thus, have admittedly worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously. Admitted, the respondent no. 2 who are the State owned corporation have their offices at Lucknow, Jhansi, Obra, Chopan, Karvi (District Banda) Lalitpur, Dehradun. Kanpur etc. The respondents are engaged in mining and excavation,of minor minerals, e.g. ganite mines, lime stones, silica mines etc. 2. The petitioners of the leading writ petition admittedly had filed writ petition no. 15654 of 1990 claiming equal pay for equal work which was being paid to the permanent employees. The said writ petition was filed on 10-7- 1990. The petition could not be taken up after the service of the notice to the respondents. Curiously, the respondents, instead of giving the petitioners equal pay for equal work and grant of regularisation, issued termination orders of services of the employees by way of retrenchment by taking aid of the provisions of section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Curiously, the respondents, instead of giving the petitioners equal pay for equal work and grant of regularisation, issued termination orders of services of the employees by way of retrenchment by taking aid of the provisions of section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondents, U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation Limited entered into an agreement with Hepworth Minerals and Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hepworth') relating to the development of silica sand deposits at Lalapur, U. P. A deed of Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the respondent and the Hepworth on 10th September, 1990. Thus, by the Memorandum of Understanding executed, a joint sector was created for Float Glass project at Bargarh whereby Continental Float Glasses was to be manufactured by the joint company. The Hepworth was to provide the technical know-how and technical services to the joint company in respect to the project and the continuing manufacture and sale of Lalapur silica sand. The perusal of the Mamorandum of Understanding produced by the counsel for the respondent no. 2 clearly shows that the respondent no. 2 had not closed its business but had taken aid of the 'Hepworth' and flated a joint company for manufacture, sale etc. of float glass. It is worth mentioning that the perusal of the memorandum of understanding shows that the respondent no. 2 have not closed their commercial activities and they still continue the business conducted by them in pursuance of the memorandum of understanding. The petitioners' case set up is that the order of termination by retrenchment is wholly illegal, malafide and liable to be set, aside. They are entitled to be regularised as having been worked for more than 240 days in an year. The petitioners alleged that their services have been terminated out of malice as they had filed a writ petition for equal pay for equal work which is pending. 3. The respondents filed their counter affidavit and pleaded specifically that the present writ petitions are barred on the ground of alternative remedy avaiable before the Labour Court. The respondents urged that the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act have been rightly invoked and notice along with bank draft for paying compensation to the retrenched employees have been given which they have accepted. The respondents urged that the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act have been rightly invoked and notice along with bank draft for paying compensation to the retrenched employees have been given which they have accepted. The submission for the counsel for the respondents is thai: the disputed questions of fact about the period of working of the petitioners is involved in the writ petition and further evidence is also required for considering the question whether the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act were invoked correctly in the present case. 4. The counsel for the respondents urged that the alternative remedy as provided under the Act is a complete bar and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents in their counter affidavit in paragraph 4 sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) pointed out that the U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation Limited have various units which are engaged in independent work at different places. One unit is independent from other units of the corporation. The different units of the corporation have regular staff and daily rated workers and workers on consolidated wages at different wages. The respondents pointed out that all the non-regular employees of Lalapur, district Allahabad have been retrenched and there was no question of retaining any person junior to the petitioners at Allahabad. The respondents admitted in paragraph 4 (g) that Lalapur unit of district Allahabad has been transferred to the joint-sector unit, with the Hepworth. The respondents, thus, wanted to say that Lalapur silica sand minings unit of the corporation ceased to exist. The preliminary objection of the respondent about the alternative remedy is misconceived. The respondents have not denied the allegations of the petitioners of the leading writ petition or the other writ petitions that they had been working since 1981, 1982 and 1988 respectively. The reply in the counter affidavit is that they were allowed to continue as daily wage workmen on consolidated wages at Lalapur since the work of the unit has been continuing for the last many years. The other question that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days is not disputed in view of the non-denial by the respondents. The perusal of the paragraph 1 of the counter affidavit of Sanjai Kumar on behalf of the respondent no. The other question that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days is not disputed in view of the non-denial by the respondents. The perusal of the paragraph 1 of the counter affidavit of Sanjai Kumar on behalf of the respondent no. 2 on the date of the filing of the counter affidavit, i.e. 5th December, 1990, clearly mentions that the said Sanjai Kumar is posted as Mining Engineer with the U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation at Allahabad unit and has been authorised to file the detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. The allegations made in the body of the counter affidavit that Lalapur unit of Allahabad has ceased to function is belied in view of the admitted statement. The perusal of the admitted document produced by the counsel for the respondents, 'Memorandum of Understanding' also shows that the respondent no. 2 has not ceased to function. It is still operating with the aid of the Hepworth and are now jointly functioning as a joint organisation. The said fact is admitted and needs no further evidence to investigate the question whether the respondent has ceased to function to decide whether the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act are applicable or not. 5. The other question raised by the petitioner is that the persons who are junior and working with the Corporation since 1989-90 have been retained and the petitioners have been retrenched out to mala fide. This allegation of the petitioners of the leading writ petition have been replied by the respondents saying that those persons were not appointed at Allahabad unit nor they are working at Allahabad unit. Thus, it is clear that the argument of the respondents that the writ petition involves investigation into the disputed question of fact is misconceived. The fact that the petitioners have been working continuously for more than several years is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Lalapur unit of the Corporation still functions with the aid of the 'Hepworth' and the permanent staff there has been retainsd. Only the non-regularised staff on consolidated pay have been retrenched. These admitted facts, if taken into consideration, clearly shows that the writ petition is not liable to be affected on the ground of the alternative remedy. The law on the alternative remedy for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is clear. Only the non-regularised staff on consolidated pay have been retrenched. These admitted facts, if taken into consideration, clearly shows that the writ petition is not liable to be affected on the ground of the alternative remedy. The law on the alternative remedy for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 , observed, "Ordinarily, it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy..... ..At any rate, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of a person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Article 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government......". This Court in Ambika Singh v. The U. P. State Sugar Corporation, 1990 (1) UP LB and EC 199. following 1967 SC 1269, observed that where no controversy about the facts before the court is involved nor any enquiry regarding any fact has to be made, the petitioners not relying upon any fact but raised only question of law involved in the writ petition, the preliminary objection about the alternative remedy is misconceived. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the copy of the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6726 of 1988; Murli Dhar Dubey v. U. P. S. R. T. C. and others delivered on 25-8-1988 which also lays the same proposition of law that in case where no investination on questions of fact is required, the plea of alternative remedy barring the jurisdiction is of no avail and the petitioner shall not be asked to go to the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. Another Single Judge decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19069 of 1990, Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, the same proposition of law has been followed. Thus, from the overwhelming case laws, a preliminary objections of the respondents about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is overruled. Writ Petition No. 19069 of 1990, Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, the same proposition of law has been followed. Thus, from the overwhelming case laws, a preliminary objections of the respondents about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is overruled. 6. On merits, the impugned orders of retrenchment of the employees by taking aid of Section 25 FF of the Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and quashed. From the admitted facts it is clear that the employer have not ceased to operate the business. The employers have entered into an agreement already referred as Memorandum of Understanding with 'Hepworth' for better function of the organisation with their technical known-how and expertise in the trade. For the convenience, section 25 FF of the said Act is being quoted under : "25 FF. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertaking.- Where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new employer, every workmen who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched : Provided that nothing in the section shall apply to a workman in any case where there has been a change of employers by reason of the transfer, if- (a) the service of the workman has not been interrupted by such transfer; (b) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and (c) the new employer is under the terms of such transfer or otherwise legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has been interrupted by the transfer." The bare perusal of the section also shows that the employers were not justified in passing order of retrenchment of the petitioners. The Memorandum of Understanding between the respondent Corporation and the "Hepworth" was executed on 10-9-1990. The Memorandum of Understanding between the respondent Corporation and the "Hepworth" was executed on 10-9-1990. At paragraph 9 on page 16 of the document it appears "while it is the intention of UPSMDC and HMC to colloborate and set up a new company for mining and processing Lalapur Silica sands on the lines and structures proposed herein......" The impugned order of retrenchment dated 6-10-90 by the Unit Incharge of respondent, Uttar Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'UPSMDC', alone after the new joint venture has come into existence is bad in law. The retrenchment in question was not consequent upon the transfer-It was retrenchment effected after Memorandum of Understanding. Such a retrenchment was held to be illigal and not in comfirmity with Section 25 FF of the Act by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Subong Tea Estate v. Subong Tea State, ILLJ 1964 at 333. The other submission that petitioners accepted the compensation paid through bank drafts and they are not estopped from challenging the retrenchment is also untenable for the reasons stated in case law stated above. The respondents' objection that after the Memorandum of Understanding all daily rated employees of Lalapur unit-became surplus and cannot be adjusted in other units-of the corporation is misconceived. It was urged that Lalapur unit is self-contained Unit and has no concern with other units. This objection is also misconceived. The Corporation is a Corporate body having various units and is controlled by their head office. There had been transfers from one unit to others in the post. Admittedly, regular workmen of Lalapur have not been removed, only non-regularised workman have been retrenched. It appears that the respondent took this step out of bias as admittedly writ petition by workmen had been filed for equal pay for equal work. After hearing the case at length and from materials on record, I am convinced that the action of employers in passing the order of retrenchment is mala fide and illegal and is liable to be quashed. 7. At the time of reserving the judgment in open court it was indicated by me to the counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions for regularising and adjusting the petitioners in the meantime and inform me by 7th January, 1991. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a scheme for adjustment of the retrenched employees with an application. 7. At the time of reserving the judgment in open court it was indicated by me to the counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions for regularising and adjusting the petitioners in the meantime and inform me by 7th January, 1991. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a scheme for adjustment of the retrenched employees with an application. In the proposal of respondent it has been reiterated that there is a ban on the corporations to create posts and to fill up existing vacancies on account of the said administrative constraints it is not possible to regularise the employees at present. However, the employees will be regularised in the categories mentioned when equivalent posts are vacant subject to suitability as per rules. It is clear that Employers still stick to their rigid stand illegally adopted which is nothing but illegal labour expolitation. The concession offered for adjustment of daily wage of Rs. 25/- to driver, mechanic and Rs. 20/- per day to fourth class employees and Rs. 920/- consolidated wage per month employees to be posted at Lalitpur, Hamirpur and Hamirpur, respectively. This is no concession or attempt to regularisation. Rather it amounts to punishment, chastising poor paid employees for seeking relief in Court of law. I have already held in this judgment that the order of retrenchment is bad in law and cannot be allowed to stand. The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed. The respondents are under a legal obligation to regularise and pay the same salary as they have worked for more than 240 days in a year as required by statute. There is no question of creating posts. The workmen since are regularly working for more than 240 days for the last several years, there is no doubt that there are the posts on which they are working. 8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders for retrenchment of petitioners are being quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of petitioners on the posts they are working and pay them the salary in the pay-scale of other regular employees working with the Corporation within 60 days from filing of the certified copy of this judgment. The respondents shall permit the petitioners to join their duties within two weeks from today. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of petitioners on the posts they are working and pay them the salary in the pay-scale of other regular employees working with the Corporation within 60 days from filing of the certified copy of this judgment. The respondents shall permit the petitioners to join their duties within two weeks from today. The respondents shall continue to pay the amount of wages at the old rate till order for regularisation is passed. The amount of retrenchment compensation already paid is liable to be adjusted towards the back wages i.e. period after the retrenchment order till the petitioners resume duties. The petitions are allowed with no orders as to costs. However, it is made clear that after regularising the services of the petitioners it shall be open for the respondents to transfer and post the petitioners to other places if it is permissible according to service conditions and standing orders, by laws of the Corporation. Petitions allowed.