JUDGMENT : 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners seek the relief of reinstatement in service on the post of Class IV employees (Safai Karamchari). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Gangman vide order dated 17-8-1984 by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur and thereafter they were transferred in the Cattle Pond. Abruptly, their services stood terminated by the verbal order of the respondent authority whereas some persons appointed by the same order were allowed to continue in service and this was done despite the fact that the petitioners had rendered 240 days service under the respondents. The respondents issued an advertisement in the year 1996 for the posts of Class IV employees with the stipulation that preference shall be given to those persons who had served the respondents. The candidature of the petitioner have not been considered for appointment by giving them preference. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Petitioners have got alternative remedy but they have come to this Court without first exhausting the alternative remedy available to them. 4. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 , held that if there is statutory remedy of appeal/revision available to a person, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such matters. 5. In C.A. Ibraham v. I.T.O., AIR 1961 SC 609 and H.B. Gandhi v. M/s Gopinath & Sons, 1992 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 312 , the Hon'ble Apex court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Singh Verma v. State of Raj. & ors., 2000(1) RLR 137 has considered this issue elaborately and after discussing large number of judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopilal Teli v. State, 1995(1) RLR 1 ; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22 ; Tin Plate Co. & ors., 2000(1) RLR 137 has considered this issue elaborately and after discussing large number of judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopilal Teli v. State, 1995(1) RLR 1 ; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22 ; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 74 and Deepak Kumar Khivsara v. Oil India Ltd., 1996(1) RLR 95 came to the conclusion that writ should not generally be entertained if statute provide for remedy of appeal and even if it has been admitted, parties should be delegated to the appellate forum. 7. In Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999)1 SCC 209 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the statute itself provides for a remedy of revision, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in K.S. Rashid & Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission & ors., AIR 1954 SC 207 , held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. The said power is limited. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. 9. Again a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India & ors. v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 , held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to persuade that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prorogative writ. The Apex Court held that existence of an another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such remedy is not exhausted, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there are good grounds therefor. 10. Yet another Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & ors. 10. Yet another Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & ors. v. Mohammed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 , considered the scope of exercise of writ jurisdiction when remedy of appeal was there and held that writ would like provided there is no other equally effective remedy. 11. Another Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., AIR 1964 SC 1006 , held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary power. 12. In S.T. Mathuswami v. K. Natarajan & ors., AIR 1988 SC 616 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot be justified to exercise the power in writ jurisdiction if an effective alternative remedy is available to the party. 13. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Service, U.P. & ors. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2225 , the Apex Court held that where the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a Government servant, the fact that the Tribunal had no authority to grant an interim order, would be no ground to by-pass the said Tribunal. 14. Since the petitioners have got alternative remedy before the Labour Court, they should first exhaust the same. 15. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners move to the State Government for making reference to Labour Court/Industrial Disputes Tribunal, the State Government shall make a reference so that the petitioner may file a claim petition before the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******