JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee on the verbal orders of respondent-Board at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day. It has been further contended that the services of the petitioner were not regularised and his services were terminated without any inquiry and that his termination is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act') since the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of service which amounts to removal from service and hence it is illegal. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been discharging the duties as a regular employee and, therefore, he is entitled to equal pay for equal work on the principle of equal pay for equal work' enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended in the grounds that the oral termination order without any enquiry amounts to victimisation and unfair labour practice. It has been further contended in the grounds that the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated against the service conditions to which no reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar nor any reference has been made in the grounds in support of the writ petition. It has been further contended that the petitioner had made a representation dated 24th May, 1990 to the respondent-Board to take him back to duty but nothing was done and the petitioner was not informed regarding the result of his representation.In the reply the aforesaid conditions have been controverted by the respondent on the ground that the question as to whether the petitioner had completed 240 days of his service is a disputed question of fact and it cannot be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same is beyond the purview of this Court. 3. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board that the petitioner was just a casual labour and was engaged as contract labour and he never worked continuously for any length of period nor his services were regularised and this fact was in the full knowledge of the petitioner that he was a casual labour engaged on daily wage basis and his services were dependent on the quantum of requirement of casual job and hence his engagement cannot be construed as on regular basis, therefore, there is no question of following the procedure as laid down under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which is applicable only in the case of regular employee. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the documents placed on the record. The petitioner has not filed the documents as regards the first contention that he has completed 240 days of service with the respondent as a Class-IV employee. The petitioner has not placed any proof on record i.e. extract from the attendance register or from the muster-roll in support of the said contention. The petitioner has also not placed any appointment letter on record nor he has placed any other document to show that he had completed more than 240 days of service and in absence of any document it cannot be inferred as to the requisite, length of service which the petitioner had completed as on the date of termination of his service i.e. 26.4.90. Moreover the appointment of the petitioner was by verbal orders of the respondent and hence the respondent was within its right to terminate the services of the petitioner since a daily wager cannot be equated with a regular employee. I am further of the opinion that these are the disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India since the law has been well settled on the point by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Gopal Lal Teli v. State of Raj., reported in 1995(11) WLC, 1. The petitioner has not invoked the alternative remedy available to him by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. 5. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner has not invoked the alternative remedy available to him by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. 5. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. It will, however be open to the petitioner to invoke the alternative remedy open to him under the Act, if so advised, in accordance with law.Writ petition dismissed. *******