JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners allege that they are Data Entry Operators and were inducted by the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter, referred as the JDA) through contractor as such against regular substantive posts. No right has been conferred to the JDA to dispense with the services of the petitioners at any point of time but they have come to know from the reliable sources that their services are going to be dispensed with in spite of the fact that they have been holding the posts for more than two years only for the reason that they are being treated as employees of the contractor. As per the averments in the petition, the JDA is a statutory body created under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 and has framed Regulations for employment of its staff but it resorted to a novel method of employing persons on regular posts which are required to be filled up as per the provisions contained in the Regulations but filled through the Co-operative Societies. Petitioners were appointed initially through Rajasthan Agency for Computer Services and on one fine morning, their services were shown on records to be hired on 1.4.1989 through Jaipur Ex-servicemen Welfare Co-operative Society who is respondent No. 2. Each one of them is being paid Rs. 100/- per day. Each of them is a Graduate of 1991 and Post-Graduate of 1995 from the University of Rajasthan and further qualified for Computer Programming from Capital Computers, Jaipur. 2. The post of Data Entry Operator has been included in the Schedule appended to the Regulations of 1984 incorporated vide Gazette Notification dated 14.5.1999 and the petitioners fulfilled the qualification laid down for the post of Data Entry Operator. They were appointed through the Rajasthan Agency for Computer Services which is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 which is respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. Both of them are qualified for the post of Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000. 3. A Computer Cell was established in the JDA in the year 1988 and the post of System Analyst, Programmer, and Data Entry Operators were created in the regular pay scale. Both of them are qualified for the post of Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000. 3. A Computer Cell was established in the JDA in the year 1988 and the post of System Analyst, Programmer, and Data Entry Operators were created in the regular pay scale. It may be stated that at the relevant point of time when petitioners were inducted, there were no Rules for recruitment laid down so far as the post of Data Entry Operator is concerned but an amendment was made by the JDA vide Notification dated 14.5.1999 by which eligibility conditions have been laid down and the petitioners fulfilled those conditions. The Rajasthan Agency for Computer Services is `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable under writ jurisdiction. In all 5 persons are working as Data Entry Operator in the computer cell and all were initially engaged by the JDA through respondent No. 3 and later on without taking their consent, their services were hired through respondent No. 2. The JDA remains their principal employer. It is not known as to why respondent No. 2 was changed but there was no relationship between petitioners and respondent No. 2. The work of Data Entry Operator is of perennial in nature for which the JDA would be competent to make appointment. The appointments made by the JDA through contractor is against Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioners are workmen Under section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by Rajasthan Act No. 34158 which reads as under : "Workman" means any person employed in any industry by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to any industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person." 4. The word `employer' Under section 2(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been amended by the Rajasthan Act No. 34/58 which reads as under:- "Where the owner of any industry in the course of or for the purpose of conducting in the industry contracts with the person for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part or any work which is ordinarily a part of the industry, the owner of the industry." 5. Thus statutory relationship exists between the petitioners and the JDA and even if they are being engaged by a person through arrangement made through an agency or the contractor they are the employees of the JDA for all practical purposes. So the artificial agency or the contractor came picture so as to circumvent the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which has been taken note of by the Rajasthan Amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act. The work discharged by the petitioners is against regular sanctioned post which are in the regular pay scale of Rs, 4000-6000 per month and is of perennial nature. The JDA extended contract with Jaipur Ex-servicemen Welfare Co-operative Society vide letter dated 16.2.2000 for a period of three months and even after its expiry those who were engaged are being allowed to continue even after the expiry of the period of three months so though initially they were taken for a period of three months only. The petitioners are not in any way related to respondent No. 2 as they are employees of the JDA as per definition of `employer' stated above and they were entitled to seek protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. They have been denied regular pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and are being paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. It has been prayed that it be directed that the petitioners be treated to have been appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator as regular employees and fixation of pay may be made in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000. It has further been prayed that the JDA may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Reply affidavit has been filed by the JDA. 7. 4000-6000. It has further been prayed that the JDA may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Reply affidavit has been filed by the JDA. 7. The case of the respondent JDA as per its reply is that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to the relief which has been claimed in this petition. It has been submitted in the reply that there was an agreement between the JDA and respondent No. 2 according to which the petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 2. They have been working on purely contract basis. The JDA informed respondent No. 2 that the petitioners will not be required after 31.8.2000 and in view of aforesaid termination of contract, they were restrained to work as Data Entry Operators in JDA. The order Annexure-R/1 has not been assailed and in absence of the same, no relief can be granted. It has been admitted that of course the post of Data Entry Operator has been included in the Regulations but there are rules for direct recruitment and the respondent JDA cannot appoint or absorb the petitioners or allow to continue them on those posts. They have also not assailed the Regulations of 1984 and that at no point of time there was a master and servant relationship between the petitioners and the JDA. In parawise reply, it has been submitted that prior to May, 1999 the post of Data Entry Operator was not cadered and it came to be encadered vide notification dated 3.5.1999. Before that JDA entered into a contract with respondent Nos. 2 & 3 time to time. Petitioners tried and managed to get their names sponsored through such contractors. The attendance certificate annexed with the writ petition show that the petitioners were allowed to work because they were provided by the Rajasthan State Agency for Computer Services or by the Jaipur Ex-servicemen Welfare Co-operative Society as the case may be. The pay rolls also show that they were the employees of the private contractors. The attendance certificate annexed with the writ petition show that the petitioners were allowed to work because they were provided by the Rajasthan State Agency for Computer Services or by the Jaipur Ex-servicemen Welfare Co-operative Society as the case may be. The pay rolls also show that they were the employees of the private contractors. It was admitted that petitioner No. 2 was initially provided by the Rajasthan State Agency for Computer Services and petitioner No. 1 was issued attendance certificate but before doing so, it was made clear that this was just to inform to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 that the persons who were provided had worked. The respondent JDA never engaged the petitioners and they have been allowed to work only because respondent Nos. 2 & 3 sent their names to work with the JDA. No reply has been filed neither by respondent No. 2 or 3. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 9. So far as question of alternative remedy is concerned, learned counsel for JDA relied on Ram Ratan Vijay & ors. v. State of Raj. & ors., RLW 1999 (2) page 753 , in which it has been held Gopi Lal Teli's case ( 1995(1) RLR 1 ) that there was no disputed questions of facts and law as to the nature of employment and, therefore, writ was held liable to be dismissed with liberty to petitioners to approach the competent court under the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, he relied on Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh & ors., AIR 1999 SC 1160 as well as on G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Nainitat v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., JT 2000 (9) SC 67 . 10. It may be stated that in Ram Ratan Vijay v. State of Raj. (supra), the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board was considered and even thereafter the writ was dismissed for want of alternative remedy because in Gopi Lal Teli's case (supra), it was held that when there are disputed questions of facts and law, this Court should not interfere under its writ jurisdiction. (supra), the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board was considered and even thereafter the writ was dismissed for want of alternative remedy because in Gopi Lal Teli's case (supra), it was held that when there are disputed questions of facts and law, this Court should not interfere under its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent JDA on the ground that in to this case termination of services of the petitioners was stayed on 31.8.2000 itself and since then they have been working with the JDA and that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act will come into force only after the termination of the petitioners, therefore, the question of alternative remedy does not arise and this method of recruitment through a contractor has been deprecated in different judgments. in Gopi Lal Teli's case (supra), there was a grievance of Cafeteria workers in the University by reason of an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani and subsequent confirmation thereof by the High Court prompted the University to move the Court in appeal against the same. It was observed that the socialistic concept of the society as laid down in Parts III and IV of the Constitution ought to be implemented in the true spirit of the Constitution. The cafeteria was being run by the University. They were more than 175 in number and in those circumstances, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals and directed the University to regularise the services of the employees in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court so as to entitle the employees of the Cafeteria to obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees of the University, as directed by the Labour Court. 11. Here in the case before me, it is not made out at all that there existed a relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the JDA. While the petitioners claim that they are the employees of the JDA which resorted to a novel method even in the end of the 20th century giving go-bye to the socialistic pattern of the Constitution though the posts are encadered, yet the petitioners were employed through contractors. While the petitioners claim that they are the employees of the JDA which resorted to a novel method even in the end of the 20th century giving go-bye to the socialistic pattern of the Constitution though the posts are encadered, yet the petitioners were employed through contractors. A number of disputed questions are involved and in view of Gopi Lal Teli's case (supra), he questions are to be decided either by the Labour Court or Civil Court. The Full Bench of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli's case has held that when there ire such disputed questions of facts and law, this Court should not interfere under its writ jurisdiction. In the Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (supra), the Apex COurt was dealing with an award passed by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence led by both the parties. It is, therefore, distinguishable. 12. Taking into account entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, this petition deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The petitioners shall be free to approach the competent authorities if they so desire to get the disputed questions of facts determined. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******