JUDGMENT 1. - Heard.Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his oral termination from service on the ground of violation of mandatory provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The respondents in their reply in para No. 2 have specifically pleaded that the petitioner was a casual daily rated worker and that he had worked only for 121 days in the year 1985 for 50 days, 70 days and 141 days in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively. Thus he had not worked continuously for more than 240 days in any calendar year immediately preceding his termination from service. The respondents have also pleaded that it was wrong to allege that on the muster roll, the petitioner was made to sign on the fictitious name of his brother Mr. Palvindar Singh. The petitioner has also not filed any affidavit of his brother Mr. Palvinder Singh in support of kis pleading. Thus a dispute/ complicated question of facts is involved in this case. 3. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Indu v. Municipal Council, W.L.R. 1991(s) Raj. 245 , to whom a reference was made was answered in the following terms : "That sections 10 and I1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act do not bar the entertainment of the writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India where it does not involve any dispute/complicated question of fact. However, the power/discretion should be exercised with great care and caution." 4. Since in this case dispute/complicated question of fact is involved, this writ petition is not fit for admission and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government and the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Industial Disputes Act 1947.Petition Dismissed. *******