Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this writ shall govern the disposal of other connected writs eingw. PNos. 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076 and 2077 of 2001, as these petitions involve common questions of law ana facts. ( 2. ) PETITIONERS were at all relevent time working in one factory belonging to respondent No. 2, a State Government undertaking. One such factory is situated at Mhow near Indore and one at Gwalior. These persons (petitioners) applied for V. R. S. (Voluntary Retirement Scheme ). It was acceded to and thus, granted. The complaint of the petitioners in these petitions is that they were paid less amount than what they are legally entitled to. In other words, the complaint is, they were paid very much less amount by way of their retiral dues than what they are actually entitled for. It is for claiming their legitimate retiral dues, the petitioners have filed these writs and claimed difference of amount, i. e. the amount which they have been paid and the amount which the petitioners are actually claiming as their real entitlement. The respondents deny the claim of the petitioners ana join issue. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri T. S. Bhatia, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. M. Chafekar, learned Government advocate for respondent No. 1 - State and Shri M. M. Asudani, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and haying perused the record of the case, I find it difficult to embark upon this inquiry in these writs and hence, inclined to dismiss it, but with observations. ( 5. ) A claim of this nature is not which can be tried in writ jurisdiction. It is a claim relating to wage as defined in Section 2 (iv) (d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In any case it is a case relating to payment of certain money claim which had become due consequent upon the retirement of an employee. It requires adjudication of facts. It becomes more so when the employer (respondent) joins issue with the employee (petitioner ). It has to be thus tried as a claim falling under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act and need to be tried by an authority (Labour Court) by holding a proper factual enquiry. ( 6. It requires adjudication of facts. It becomes more so when the employer (respondent) joins issue with the employee (petitioner ). It has to be thus tried as a claim falling under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act and need to be tried by an authority (Labour Court) by holding a proper factual enquiry. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid, I, while dismissing this writ grant liberty to the petitioner to file a proper application before the Labour Court, Indore, under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and claim relief for which this writ is filed against the respondents. In case, if such application is filed by the petitioner, within one month from the date of this order, the same shall be dealt with and decided on merits by the Labour Court, Indore after holding proper inquiry into the claim so made by the petitioner. Since, the claim relates to post retiral benefits, the claim will be decided within six months by the Labour Court. It is also held that respondents will not raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, as this issue was also raised by the respondents while opposing these writs, but in my view, part of cause action did arise to file a writ at Indore. It is because of this reason that I am granting this liberty to the petitioner to file a claim before the Labour Court, Indore for adjudication of their claim. ( 7. ) WITH these observations, the petition fail and is dismissed. No cost.