Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is for mandamus to direct the respondents to give employment to the 26 loadmen, who have been working under the respondents from 1973 who are the members of the petitioner-union in the godown to be opened in Balakrishna Nagar at Mannargudi. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are as follows : The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited had rented godown at Pamani in Mannargudi taluk from 1973. The workmen were engaged as loadmen in the said godown from 1973. The Civil Supplies Corporation constructed its godown at Balakrishna Nagar, Mannargudi and shifted its activities from Pamani to Balakrishna Nagar. In a meeting held on September 5, 1987 convened by the Deputy Manager, at Mannargudi Taluk Office, all representatives of C. I. T. Union, Anna D. M. K. Union and Dr. Ambedkar Loadmen union have participated. The proposal of the Deputy Manager in chair meeting was not acceptable to the petitioner-union. In the new godown workmen from other unions have been accommodated, but the 26 members of the union were not accommodated. Hence dispute was raised, it is violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot deny employment to the 26 workers under Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the godown at Pamani was functioning only from August 22, 1982. The Corporation has constructed the godown at a cost of Rs. 4 lakhs in Balakrishna Nagar. The loadmen working in the godown or other places of the corporation are members of various trade unions. In a meeting held on September 5, 1987 it was resolved to engage labourers as follows : "C. I. T. U. (Writ Petitioner) 18 persons : Anna Thozihilalar Sangam 18 persons; and Dr. Ambedkar Association 14 persons. " After the agreement when shifting commenced on September 9, 1987, the petitioner prevented the operation. The petitioner requested time to implement the decision till September 24, 1987. After giving time, they filed the writ petition. The petitioners are not working from 1973 onwards in Pamani Godown. After having agreed, the petitioner went back upon the agreement, the decision was not arbitrary. In fact only 15 to 18 members of their men were attending the work at Pamani godown and not 26. After giving time, they filed the writ petition. The petitioners are not working from 1973 onwards in Pamani Godown. After having agreed, the petitioner went back upon the agreement, the decision was not arbitrary. In fact only 15 to 18 members of their men were attending the work at Pamani godown and not 26. Settlement was arrived at through Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi to engage labourers from all the three trade Unions. There was no discrimination, since the workmen were paid full wages for the quantum of work done every day. The Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. Since 18 persons from the petitioner-union have been engaged, there is no discrimination at all. ( 4 ) AFTER bearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. ( 5 ) THE claim is that 26 persons must be given employment, because they were working in the godown from 1973 onwards. This factual aspect is categorically denied by the respondents in the counter. Further it is admitted that 19 persons have been given work. Hence, I am not in a position to investigate the question of fact, in the writ proceedings. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in N. Sundaramony v. The State Bank of India, Kuzhithurai Branch, (1973ii-LLJ-551) and contended that the writ petition is maintainable, inspite of the fact that the Union could have raised industrial dispute. In the said decision, a single Judge of our High Court has held that even though there is an alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, the writ petition is also maintainable. He has also followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960-I-LLJ-251 ). The maintainability is one thing and investigation of facts in the writ petition is another thing, since the vital facts are disputed, the appropriate remedy to the petitioner would have been to raise an industrial dispute. The said decision has been upheld by a Bench decision of this Court in Assistant Personal Officer. Southern Railway, Olavakkot v. K. T. Anthony (1978-II-LLJ-254 ). ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel cited another decision in state Bank of India v. Shri N. Suwdaramony (1976-I-LLJ-478) (SC ). The said decision has been upheld by a Bench decision of this Court in Assistant Personal Officer. Southern Railway, Olavakkot v. K. T. Anthony (1978-II-LLJ-254 ). ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel cited another decision in state Bank of India v. Shri N. Suwdaramony (1976-I-LLJ-478) (SC ). In the said case, termination is stated to be retrenchment even when the termination is on the basis of a term of service. In this case we are not concerned with the question of retrenchment. As stated in the counter, all the 19 persons have been given employment in the new godown. ( 8 ) THE other decision reported in T. Gattaiah and 86 others v. Commissioner of Labour and another (1981-II-LLJ-54 ). (AP) In this case also it is held that mandamus would lie against the respondent company to carry out the divisions of the Parliamentary enactment contained in Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. As stated above, we are not concerned with maintainability of the writ petition, in this case. For the foregoing masons, I feel that there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.