Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Company Judge dated 30.07.2004 recorded in S.B. Company Application No. 112/2001 in S.B. Company Petition No. 30/1996 vide which the application of the appellant herein seeking employment in any of the departments of the State Government or in the public undertaking was dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant was an employee of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited which was ordered to be wound up by the Court but the winding up order had not been given effect to. 3. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on the company being wound up all employees of the company were being absorbed by giving them alternative employment and it is this request which was made before the learned Company Judge by moving an application but the learned Company Judge observed that during the course of hearing it has transpired that the appellant had filed writ petition challenging his deputation to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. As this material fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court, the appellant could not be granted the desired relief of absorption in an alternative employment. Learned Company Judge, as a matter of fact, held that it was a case of concealment of material fact, thus disentitling the appellant to any relief . 4. On the last date of hearing, we had sent for the records of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2827/1998 in which appellant had challenged order of his deputation to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Office has tagged up the said file with the present case for reference. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that the appellant was sent on deputation for a year only. It was not a case where appellant was being absorbed in alternative employment and therefore, non-disclosure of this fact could not tantamount to concealment of material fact, further contends learned Counsel. 6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. 7. It was not a case where appellant was being absorbed in alternative employment and therefore, non-disclosure of this fact could not tantamount to concealment of material fact, further contends learned Counsel. 6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. 7. We are of the firm view that challenge to the order dated 22.05.1998 (Annexure-3 in Writ Petition No. 2827/1998) sending appellant on deputation for a year only, was not a material fact, concealment whereof might have entailed dismissal of the application. The appellant was seeking his permanent absorption in the alternative job. It was not a case where he might have been accommodated on alternative job and which he might have challenged. As mentioned above, it was an order sending appellant on deputation only that was challenged before the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2827/1998. This could not be a material fact in the matter of absorption of the petitioner in regular alternative employment. 8. Learned Counsel representing the parties have however joined issue with regard to the main relief asked for by the appellant. Whereas it is case of the appellant that all other employees of the Corporation have since been accommodated on alternative jobs, it is urged on behalf of the respondent Corporation that the name of the appellant was sent to the department for absorption on more than 12 occasions but ultimately, he was not absorbed in any of the departments. There was no debate on this issue before the learned Company Judge. We are of the opinion that this crucial issue should first be determined by the learned Company Judge. As mentioned above, learned Company Judge dismissed the application on the only ground that the appellant had concealed material fact. 9. In view of the discussion made above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the learned Company Judge and remit the matter to him for determination of the crucial question of appellant being entitled to alternative job. Parties are however left to bear their own costs.