SANIAV MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 7. 8. 2000 filed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the services of the petitioner were retrenched without following legal procedure although the petitioner has performed his duty with sincerity and full devotion from 1989 to the year 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a circular dated 7. 4. 2000 a copy whereof has been filed as annexure-7 to the writ petition. This circular has been issued by Secretary, Rural Engineering Services, U. P. Lucknow a perusal of which indicates that in Writ Petition No. 8148 of 1990 Haider Mehdi Rizvi v. State of U. P. and Ors. this court had passed an order dated 21. 7. 93 wherein it had been that Rural Engineering Service is an industry and the persons working therein are covered by the definition of workmen as defined under Industrial Dispute Act and as such it has been stated that the service condition of such workmen will be governed by the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner submits that he had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 36021 of 1999 where in this court had passed order on 24. 8. 99 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner with respect to regularization of service of the petitioner. As a consequence thereof the respondent. no. 2 has considered the representation of the petitioner and 7 rejected the same by the impugned order. ( 3 ) FROM the impugned order it appears that as per record of the respondents the petitioner has worked for different periods from 1. 1. 91 to 1. 8. 92. It has been stated in the impugned order that appointment of the petitioner was for fixed period and fixed wage. It has been found that in the facts and the circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regularization under the Rule and consequently the claim of the petitioner has been turned down. 8. 92. It has been stated in the impugned order that appointment of the petitioner was for fixed period and fixed wage. It has been found that in the facts and the circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regularization under the Rule and consequently the claim of the petitioner has been turned down. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits thai the statement made in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner has worked only upto the year 1992 is factually incorrect and that the petitioner has worked sincerely from 1989 to 2000 and the respondents have illegally retrenched the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT appears that appointment of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was for fixed period and fixed salary and that the petitioner worked only from 1. 9. 91 with breaks upto 1. 8. 92 and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of Regularization Rules. On the other hand, the petitioners contention is that he had worked from 1989 to 2000 continuously. An appointment letter dated 25. 6. 91 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition showing that the petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee on a fixed pay of Rs. 750/- per month for a period of three months under the respondent no. 3. His appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated without any prior notice. Annexure-2, 3 and 8 to the writ petition are orders dated 23. 9. 1991, 29. 2. 1992 and 6. 6. 1992 whereby the employment of the petitioner has been continued on the same terms and conditions for a period of three months each. On 7. 10. 1998 the petitioner had made an application to the respondent no. 2 to regularise his services and vide Annexure-3 he applied for appointment in pursuance of an advertisement, No. 3282. From the aforementioned record the petitioner has not been able to establish the fact that he has worked continuously since 1989 to 2000. The averments made by the petitioner to such effect are not supported by any evidence as placed before this court. However, the petitioner can agitate his claim with supporting evidence before the fact finding forum. From the aforementioned record the petitioner has not been able to establish the fact that he has worked continuously since 1989 to 2000. The averments made by the petitioner to such effect are not supported by any evidence as placed before this court. However, the petitioner can agitate his claim with supporting evidence before the fact finding forum. This court cannot decide such disputed questions of fact, firstly because of lack of sufficient material on record and secondly because these facts require proof by evidence, documentary and oral ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has submitted that in view of the circular dated 7. 4. 2000 issued by the government the petitioner would be covered by the definition of workman as given in the industrial Disputes Act and further that the Rural Engineering Services Department being an industry as already held by this court, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek a reference under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. He submits that on the own showing of the petitioner he has an effective alternative remedy. ( 7 ) IN the case of U. P. Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari sangh 2005 AIR SCW 3149 the Honble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as follows:" the only reason given by the High Court to finally dispose of the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable, is the factor of delay, on the part of the High court in disposing of the dispute. Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurer. Nevertheless even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the high Court should not, even when there is a delay, short circus the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case remain unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner which is just and fair to both the parties. The high Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned single Judge in Anand Prakashs case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief. They must be resolved in a manner which is just and fair to both the parties. The high Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned single Judge in Anand Prakashs case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief. ( 8 ) THE plea of availability of an alternative remedy must be raised at the earliest particularly when the issue raised by the petitioner requires resolution of factual controversies. This writ petition was filed before this court on 26. 4,2001 and on 30. 4. 2001 the respondents were granted time to file their reply. Nc counter affidavit has been filed till date on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out this fact and submitted that since this court had invited a reply from the respondents therefore, this petition should be decided on merits, only after such reply is filed by the respondents. ( 9 ) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted due to the following reasons. Firstly the argument made on behalf of the respondents is based solely on the record of this writ petition as filed by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as is apparent from circular dated 7. 4. 2000 ( Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Government. Secondly the averments regarding continuity of service of the petitioner from 1989 to 2000 is in direct contradiction to the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 7. 10. 1998 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and such factual controversy cannot be decided by this court in the absence of sufficient material, which has not beer-brought on record by the petitioner. Thirdly, the factual controversy between the parties heroin is still unresolved according to the case set up by the petitioner before this court. And fourthly the issue of alternative remedy has been raised by the respondents. The forum available to the petitioner under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is an effective forum for resolution of dispute arising between workman and their employers. And fourthly the issue of alternative remedy has been raised by the respondents. The forum available to the petitioner under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is an effective forum for resolution of dispute arising between workman and their employers. Honble Supreme Court while considering the case of premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kemlekar Shantaram Wadke AIR1975 SC 2238 , [1975 (31 )FLR195 ], 1975 Lablc1651 , (1975 )II LLJ445 SC , (1976 )1 SCC496 , [1976 ]1 SCR427 has observed in the case of U. P. Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. case ( Supra) in paragraph 11 as follows: "we are of the firm opinion that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of the respondent- Union at all The dispute was an industrial dispute both within the meaning of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the UPlda, 1947. the rights and obligations sought to be enforced by the respondent- Union in the writ petition are those created by the Industrial disputes Act. In the Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kemlekar Shantaram Wadke. AIR1975 SC 2238 , [1975 (31 )FLR195 ], 1975 Lablc1651 , (1975 )II llj445 SC , (1976 )1 SCC496 , [1976 ]1 SCR427 , it was held that when the dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the claimant is to get adjudication under the Act. This was because the Industrial disputes Act was made to provide ". . . a speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedure followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the court and tribunals created by the industrial Disputes Act ate not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revision. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and re-make the contracts, settlement, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this court under article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court This is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legistative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them. " ( 10 ) YET another argument raised by the learned counsel is that in the earlier Writ Petition No. 36021 of 1999 filed by the petitioner this court had directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and because the impugned order in this writ petition is a compliance of the directions issued in the earlier writ petition, therefore, the controversy involved herein should be decided and the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy. It has been argued that the claim of the petitioner before this court was firstly raised in the year 1999 in Writ Petition No. 36021 of 1999 and after decision taken by ihe respondent against the petitioner it has been raised in the present writ petition. ( 11 ) A copy of the order dated 24. 8. 1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 36021 of 1999 has not been filed by the petitioner, however, the substance, can be gathered from paragraph 9 of the writ petition as also by a reading of the impugned order. The direction was issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two. months from the date of production of the order dated 24. 8. 99 before such authority. It is , therefore, apparent that even in the earlier writ petition this court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the petitioners claim out directed the employer of the petitioner to address his grievance. months from the date of production of the order dated 24. 8. 99 before such authority. It is , therefore, apparent that even in the earlier writ petition this court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the petitioners claim out directed the employer of the petitioner to address his grievance. By the impugned order such grievance of the petitioner has been addressed by the employer. Against this order the petitioner has raised factual controversy in this writ petition by challenging the correctness of the findings of fact recorded by his employer. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy cannot be said to be in effect setting aside the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Moreover that order has already been executed when the representation of the petitioner was decided by the concerned authority /employer on 7. 8. 2000. ( 13 ) ON these facts and circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner since he has an effective alternative remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act ( 14 ) THIS writ petition is finally disposed off. No is passed as to costs. . .