JUDGMENT The petitioner served for intermittent periods as Chowkidar on daily wages at Balaghat on the construction work undertaken by respondent M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. which is a government company. According to the petitioner he served the corporation between April, 1992 to July 1996. Thereafter he was not allowed to serve. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks relief of re-instatement in service and his regularisation against available posts. The corporation has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was employed on daily wages as work charged employee for a work of a temporary nature to lookafter the cement stock in the godown at Balaghat. It is submitted that earlier cement used to be supplied by the corporation to the contractors for construction work but as cement is no longer scarce commodity, the system of supply of cement by the corporation has been discontinued. There is, therefore, no requirement of large number of Chowkidars for cement godowns as was the requirement in the past. It is for the above reason that the petitioner's services were discontinued and not on the ground of any personal displeasure, as has been alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner of any officer of the corporation. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that long service put in by the petitioner in the corporation justifies his claim for reinstatement and regularisation. A few decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court have been relied. Shri Qamruddin learned counsel appearing for the corporation in his reply submits that a decision to discontinue the services of the petitioner was taken for want of sufficient work of Chowkidar at Balaghat and for non-availability of any posts of Chowkidars against which the petitioner could be regularised. Against his alleged termination the petitioner has chosen not to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial law. It is only in that Court that his claim could have been investigated on the evidence led by the parties whether the petitioner was in un-interrupted service and could not have been discontinued without payment of retrenchment compensation under section 25-F of the I.D. Act. From the copies of the orders of his appointment as work charged employee and from the record of his case it appears that there were long breaks in his service. From the copies of the orders of his appointment as work charged employee and from the record of his case it appears that there were long breaks in his service. The appropriate remedy under the Industrial law having not been availed, It is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion either way whether the petitioner's termination was contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. So far as the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement or regularisation of service on the ground of his past long service is concerned, relief can be granted to the employee only with due regard to the nature of service rendered by him and the availability of job or post with the employer. There is no ground to dis-believe the case of the corporation that because of the discontinuance of system of supply of cement, the work of Chowkidars for cement godowns has been reduced. The petitioner's services, as work charged employee were discontinued for non availability of work at the place where he was employed. The petitioner cannot claim any right in law that he must be accommodated and employed at any other place where the construction work of the corporation is in progress. There is no work and vacancies as is stated by the corporation. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim either re-instatement or regularisation. The stand of the corporation is not found to be merely a pretext as is sought to be urged. See the case of Satyanarayan Sharma v. National Mineral Development Corporation ( AIR 1990 SC 2054 ). For the aforesaid reason without prejudice to the remedy of the petitioner, if at all available in the industrial law, the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted. The petition is hereby accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.