JUDGMENT N. L. Ganguly, J. - These two petitioners are working at the U.P.State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation) at Allahabad who had been given work since 15th October, 1987, as daily wage workers. While posted at Lalapur Silica Sand Mines, Allahabad, the petitioners received notice calling for an explanation from them to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against them (a copy of the said notice is annexed with the petitions as Annexure 5' to the petition. The petitioners submitted their reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, a copy whereof is also annexed with the petition. The respondents had stayed payment of salary to the petitioners after June, 1990. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner through the Karmchari Sangh of the Corporation, being Writ Petition No. 3392 of 1990, seeking a writ of mandamus for regularising the services of the petitioners, and also for making payment of salary. The respondents by an order dated 25.6.1990 transferred a large number of workmen to Muir Road (Circular Road Office of the unit of the Corporation). The petitioners annexed copy of the attendance register w.e.f. 10.8.1990 onward to show that they were sent from Naini to Allahabad (Circular Road Office) to work. On 1.9.1990, the petitioners were directed to attend the loading site of Naini. The respondents were not paying the salary to the petitioners, hence an application was submitted by the petitioners to the Mining Engineer on 29.9.1990. Reminder was also submitted on 4.10.1990 and 19.10.1990. The petitioners though worked for more than 3 years, they have not been regularised, while in law they should be treated to have been regularised. The respondents had neither passed any orders terminating the services or retrenching them from the service. 2. Another 29 workmen who were working with the respondent Corporation had also been treated in the same manner by the employers. The retrenchment of those 29 workmen (employees) was made on the ground that the management had been transferred to an English firm, vis. the Hepoorth Co., and as such the employees were being retrenched. Those 29 workmen (employees) filed a Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 29537 of 1990 : Umesh Chand Pandey, and others v. U. P. State Mineral Corporation and others. The petition was heard and finally decided by me by the judgment dated 4.2.1991. the Hepoorth Co., and as such the employees were being retrenched. Those 29 workmen (employees) filed a Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 29537 of 1990 : Umesh Chand Pandey, and others v. U. P. State Mineral Corporation and others. The petition was heard and finally decided by me by the judgment dated 4.2.1991. The petition was allowed and the orders for retrenchment of the workmen was quashed. The respondents were directed to regularise the services of the petitioners on their respective posts and to pay to them salary in the pay-scale of other regularised employees of the Corporation on the respective posts within 60 days. It was made clear that the respondents shall permit the workmen-petitioners to join their duties within 2 weeks from the date of the judgment and continue paying wages at the old rate till the order of regularisation is passed. It is worth-mentioning that the said judgment was also challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the respondent-employers and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to confirm the judgment of this Court with a direction to extend the period of regularisation to one year. 3. The present petition is by the workmen of the respondent-Corporation who had also approached this Court through a writ petition on 8.1.1991. The present petitioners seek the same relief as was sought by the earlier petitioners (Workmen-employee) of the corporation. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent, taking a stand that the petitioners were appointed on daily-wages at rate of Rs. 17/- per day which was subsequently raised to Rs. 25/- per day. Their appointment was purely on daily wages and their period of work was extended from time to time. According to them petitioners were given fresh appointments according to the need. The fact that the petitioners were regularly working in the corporation was not denied. However, it was denied that they were regular employees of the Corporation. The respondents pleaded that these two petitioners had not worked at Lalapur with effect from 2.7.1990 on the pretext that the work was very hard. They were also accused of inciting other workers not to work and the respondents were compelled to serve notice to them to show cause for the indiscipline. The respondents submit further that those petitioners had also approached the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages for payment of their wages. They were also accused of inciting other workers not to work and the respondents were compelled to serve notice to them to show cause for the indiscipline. The respondents submit further that those petitioners had also approached the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages for payment of their wages. It was urged that since these two petitioners have taken recourse to an alternative remedy, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit and annexed the order of the Prescribed Authority aforesaid dated 21.1.1992 which shows that the petitioners withdrew the application before the Prescribed Authority. Thus, the objection of the respondents of alternative remedy is no more a hurdle for deciding the present petition on merits. 5. The respondents' objection is that the petitioners had not actually worked with them and are not entitled for any wages or salary from them. The respondents stated that since 1.9.1990 after the order to the petitioner to work at Naini was made the petitioners had not worked at the loading site. Admittedly, the show cause notice for the alleged indiscipline was given by the respondents to which a reply was also given. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were actually removed by any order thereafter or any proceeding for retrenchment or termination of their services was actually taken against them. 6. It has been stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the judgment of Writ Petition No. 29537 of 1990 (Supra) has no relevance to the present controversy, inasmuch as the petitioners of the earlier writ petition were served with a notice of retrenchment, while the present petitioners had stopped their work on their own free-will and have thus no right or claim for regularisation nor are they entitled for being retained in service. The respondents stated that since the petitioners had stopped the work with effect from June, 1990, they are not entitled for any salary. The petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit stated that the respondents have not paid the wages since June, 1990 in spite of the fact that they had continuously worked thereafter. The petitioners were not permitted to work or allotted any work since September, 1990. The petitioners always were willing to perform their duties. The petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit stated that the respondents have not paid the wages since June, 1990 in spite of the fact that they had continuously worked thereafter. The petitioners were not permitted to work or allotted any work since September, 1990. The petitioners always were willing to perform their duties. It was only on account of the respondents' own action they were prevented from performing their duties on various pretexts. It is submitted that there is nothing on record nor it has been said that the services of the petitioners were ever terminated by any order passed by the respondents. The allegations of the respondents thus cannot be accepted. If the petitioners had stopped working on their own, there was no difficulty for the respondents to issue an order terminating their services or give them an opportunity to explain their absence from the work. It is not possible to treat the petitioners' employment having come to an end unless there is some express order to the said effect. It is clear from the facts and circumstances that the respondents were out with a determined action of removing those two petitioners along with other 29 workmen of the corporation. The present petitioners have under some legal advice approached the prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, but the said Proceedings were withdrawn by the petitioners later on. The present petitioners stand on the same footing as the petitioners of the earlier writ petition cited above and I do not find any difference or distinction with the facts and circumstances of the present petition and the earlier one, namely, W.P.No. 29537 of 1990 (Supra). 7. In the result, the present petition allowed in terms of the Judgment of the earlier writ petition No. 29537 of 1990 : Umesh Chandra Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided by me on 4.2.1991.