Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Although matter has come on application under Article 226(3) of Constitution of India but, at joint request and with consent of both the parties, matter has been finally heard and is disposed of at admission stage. 2. Instant petition has been filed seeking direction to consider candidature of petitioner for grant of regular pay and for regularization of service in the cadre of Class IV. 3. Facts, in brief , for adjudication are that petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener in Cattle Field, Nadbai in the year 1980 on daily wages and on 08.08.1984 respondents assigned him work of stitching machine. His services were terminated on 01.07.1986 by verbal order against which dispute was referred for adjudication before Labour court, Bharatpur where after examining the material, recorded a finding that before terminating his services, respondents failed to comply with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) as a consequence whereof , workman was ordered to reinstated in service with 25% back-wages vide award dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure-1). The Award was challenged by respondents before this Court by way of writ petition but that too was dismissed-as a consequence whereof , petitioner was reinstated in service in terms of Award (Annexure-1) vide order dated 30.05.2005 in pursuance whereof he joined on 01.06.2005 and thereafter submitted an application dated 07.06.2005 (Annexure-3) for fixation in regular pay scale and so also for regularization of his service and according to him, since no action was taken by respondent on his application, he approached this Court by way of instant petition. As petitioner was apprehending termination, stay application was filed for restraining respondents from passing any prejudicial order pendente writ petition. 4. This Court while issuing notice, passed interim order on 10.08.2005 whereby respondents were restrained from terminating services of petitioner. However, Counsel for petitioner failed to submit process fee and notices with extra set, even as per report lastly made by the Registry of this court on 24.01.2006. 4. This Court while issuing notice, passed interim order on 10.08.2005 whereby respondents were restrained from terminating services of petitioner. However, Counsel for petitioner failed to submit process fee and notices with extra set, even as per report lastly made by the Registry of this court on 24.01.2006. Respondents filed their power on 21.02.2006 and an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, for vacation of interim stay order, wherein it has been inter-alia averred that since there was neither any post nor work available for the petitioner and the Award (Annexure-1) was passed earlier only because of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act; as such respondents passed fresh order terminating his services after due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act vide order dated 112.2005 (Annexure R-3/1) and only thereafter a letter was received through Courier on 112.2005 which the petitioner sent alongwith copy of interim stay order and immediately thereupon respondents re-called order of termination and allowed him to join vide order dated 212.2005 (Annexure R-3/3) in pursuance whereof , petitioner joined service vide report dated 212.2005 (Annexure R-4). 5. It is a specific case of respondents that there is neither sanctioned post nor work for the petitioner and his services have been dispensed with vide order dated 112.2005 (Annexure R-3/1) for aforesaid reasons after due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. 6. When application for vacation came up for consideration, this Court vide order dated 07.03.2006 directed respondents to file list of such Class IV/ Helper working on daily wages basis in their establishment and the date on which they were initially appointed. In compliance of order of this Court, ibid, respondents filed additional affidavit, inter-alia averring that in cattle field plant at Nadbai, in all 20 persons are working as permanent employee as Helper/Class IV and there is no vacant post or work for the petitioner in the plant at Nadbai and the work for operating machines is being executed by the labours employed through licensed contractors and for aforesaid reasons, his services were dispensed with after complying with Section 25-f of the Act. 7. 7. Counsel for petitioner contends that in view of order of reinstatement in service passed vide Award (Annexure-1), petitioner by legal fiction is to be treated in service since 1980 and thereby he has completed more than 25 years of service as daily wager; as such became entitled at least for fixation at minimum in regular pay scale and so also for regularization of his services and denial whereof is violative of Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution and so also principles of natural justice; and more so when scheme for regularization of such daily wagers have been implemented by State Government in Social Welfare Department and different standards could not have been adopted by the respondents. In support of the contention, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Radha Devi vs. State, 2005 (2) WLC 220 (Raj.) and unreported decision delivered on 25.08.2005 at Principal seat of this Court in CWP 2593/03 ALka Mathur vs. Raj. State Road Dev. & Const. Corpn. and D.B. Judgment in State vs. Chetram Meena Special Appeal (Writ) No. 125 of 1999 decided on 210.2005. 8. Per contra, Counsel for respondents urged that there is neither a sanctioned post nor any work available for the petitioner and earlier also, his services were terminated in July, 1986 for these reasons, after due compliance under the Act, 1947 but for good reasons, necessary record could not have been filed before Labour Court in absence whereof , finding was recorded holding their action to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and as a consequence of the Award (Annexure-1), petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service; since his services are not required, so fresh order was passed terminating his services after due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act on 112.2005 but only because of ad interim stay order passed by this Court on 10.08.2005 which was brought to their notice only on 112.2005 in pursuance whereof immediately order of his termination was kept in abeyance and he was allowed to join till stay order remains operative. 9. 9. Counsel for respondents further urged that in absence of any sanctioned post or availability of work for petitioner, his candidature cannot be considered for regular pay or for regularization of service and being daily wager, no right can otherwise be said to have conferred for his retention in service and it is not the case of petitioner that any person junior to him has been retained and only reference of certain employees has been made by petitioner while submitting reply to additional affidavit but there is no factual material on record to support the same and in absence whereof , it cannot be said that juniors are retained in service and that apart, dispute raised by petitioner is an industrial dispute under the Act, 1947which provides him a special mechanism for adjudication and in absence of evidence led in support of their contention, such disputed facts cannot be examined by this Court in limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner workman is a daily wager and his services were earlier dispensed with July, 1986 and the Labour Court while setting aside order of termination held action of respondents to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and as a consequence whereof , he was reinstated in service and fresh decision has been taken by respondents to dispense with his services after due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act but order of termination has been kept in abeyance because of ad interim stay order, which was later on brought to their notice. So far as submission made by Counsel for petitioner for regular pay scale and regularization of service is concerned, in view of factual statement made by Counsel for respondents which remained uncontroverted about availability of post and requirement of services of petitioner especially when there are no such daily wagers working in establishment of respondent at Cattle field plant Nadbai as is evident from material on record placed alongwith affidavit produced by respondents; and contrarily no details have been furnished by petitioner about names referred to in Para 4 of reply to additional affidavit. In my opinion, right claimed by petitioner of his fixation in regular pay scale and so also for regularization of service, is without any substance and more so he has failed to establish his right to claim either under statutory rules or policy or scheme laid down by the State Government. 11. So far as Judgment s relied by Counsel for petitioner are concerned, in those cases State Government prepared its policy for employees working in social welfare department, which was submitted before Apex Court and according to the scheme, candidature of employees was considered for regularization but there is no such scheme available for employees/appointed/engaged on daily wages basis in cattle field plant of respondent; as such Judgment s referred to by Counsel for petitioner are of no assistance. 12. This fact cannot also be ruled out that because of non-availability of post and work for the petitioner, respondents have taken fresh decision with regard to his termination from service, after due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. However, fresh termination order has been kept in abeyance only because of ad interim stay order passed by this Court. In my opinion, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved by action of respondents against termination of his services, he is always free to resort to remedy available under the Act, 1947 which certainly provides a special mechanism to a workman for adjudication of dispute where respondents can also have an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case, which in my opinion is an efficacious alternative remedy available to him. 13. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay Petition No. 5532 of 2005. No costs.