O R A L J U D G M E N T (per the Hon’ble Mr.Chief Justice S.B.Sinha) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 29-11-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6922 of 1994 in terms whereof the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed. The factual matrix of the matter lies in a narrow compass. The appellant was appointed as a Helper on 16-4-1990. He was later on converted into a daily wageworker from 16-4-1992 up to 31-3-1994. He was thereafter engaged on contract basis up to September 1995, but he was orally instructed not to attend duty from April, 1994. The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein inter alia praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing the appellant to attend his legitimate duties as unjust, improper and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since his juniors are being continued in service and for a further declaration that he is entitled for regularisation in the cadre of Helper from the date of original appointment as NMR Helper with consequential monetary benefits. The learned single Judge, having regard to the affidavits of the parties, framed the following questions for consideration: 1.Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the respondents and whether it has come within the definition of State as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the respondents have violated the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act in orally instructing the petitioner not to attend duties? The first question was answered in favour of the appellant. As regards the second question, it was held that the appellant was not entitled to a relief for regularisatlon of his services. Mr.Manohar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that having regard to the decision of a learned single judge of this Court In R.SREENIVASA RAO v. LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD(1) the writ petition was maintainable as prior to termination of the services, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with. The learned counsel on a question, however, very fairly stated that the appellant was not entitled to a relief for regularisation of services. The learned counsel on a question, however, very fairly stated that the appellant was not entitled to a relief for regularisation of services. Having regard to the factual matrix involved in this appeal, we would not intend to go into the contentions raised at the Bar in view of the fact that assuming that a writ petition was maintainable, the appellant was admittedly engaged on contract basis up to September, 1995. The reason for his termination from service in the month of April, 1994 by an oral order would involve a disputed question of fact. in any event, having regard to the admitted fact that he was engaged on contract service up to September 1995, the industrial Court in all probability might not have issued a direction for his reinstatement with full back wages. Upon consideration of the material on records, the appropriate industrial court might have granted compensation to which the appellant might have been found entitled to. In this view of the matter and particularly having regard to the fact that services of the appellant admittedly had been terminated in April 1994, in our opinion, It is not a fit case that this court should exercise Its jurisdiction In terms of the provisions contained under Article 226 of the Constitution and in particular the writ petition involves a disputed question of fact. It is also to note that in BASANT KUMAR v. EAGLE ROLLING MILLS (2) the Apex Court has held that ordinarily the writ Court shall not convert Itself into an Industrial court. The said decision of the Apex Court has been followed by several High Courts in many judgments. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that It is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, even assuming that a writ petition was maintainable. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the appointment of the appellant afresh nor this order shall preclude the respondent from consideration of the case of the appellant for a fresh employment if the same is available at any other place. The writ appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No order as to costs. --X—