S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in these writ proceedings claims a direction to the respondents to confer upon him temporary status, based on a scheme titiled the casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) Scheme of 1989. The Petitioner claims to have been appointed by respondent BSNL in its establishment at Gurgaon sometime in 1998. He has produced copies of certain documents purporting to be attendance sheets. He also relies upon some certificates said to be issued by the officials of the BSNL. ( 2 ) MR. Ranjit Sharma submits that the petitioner continued to work in the establishment of BSNL at Gurgaon till 29. 6. 2001 when without issuing any formal or written order, his services were dis-continued. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel has taken me through the scheme of 1989. He submits that the petitioner had put in more that the requisite period of services which entitle him to temporary status. As per para 5 of the scheme, casual labourers currently employed, who had rendered continuous service of at least one year out of which they must have been engaged for work for 240 days were entitled to be designated as temporary mazdoors. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have taken an untenable stand that the petitioner was never with their employment. He submits that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the disputes in these proceedings and it would not be expedient to the petitioner to avail remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of india, AIR 1961 SC 532 to say that normal concept of cause of action which is based upon enacted laws such as Civil Procedure Code would be inapplicable for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution which stands on a completely different footing. It was submitted that the supreme Court had ruled that proceedings under Article 226 are not normal, and they provide extra-ordinary remedies by special procedure conferring special powers to the High Court, which can be exercised in respect of the State or persons within its jurisdiction. The only requirement, it was submitted is that the concerned authority against whom relief is sought must be available within the jurisdiction of the Court. The only requirement, it was submitted is that the concerned authority against whom relief is sought must be available within the jurisdiction of the Court. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition raises disputed questions of fact and that the remedy of a writ petition would not be appropriate. The petitioner s assertions that he was employed by the BSNL at all, were disputed. It was submitted that the documents relied upon are not genuine. Learned counsel also submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction and that the mere fact that some office of the BSNL is located within the territory of Delhi would not by itself authorise or warrant the exercise of discretion of article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) THE issue of territorial jurisdiction in the context of Article 226 (2) has been a matter of considerable debate. Coniserable case law on the point exists, after the judgment in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh s case. In fact, all the relevant decisions were considered by a Three Judge Banch decision of the supreme Court delivered in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 . The Court had distinguished Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh s case and stated that the mere fact that situs of the office fell within jurisdiction of the particular High Court would not ipso facto constitute sufficient cause for exercise of jurisdiction. The Court also emphasized the need to scrutinize the averments in the petition to see whether there was any justification for exercise of jurisdiction by the concerned by the High Court. ( 7 ) IN this case, the averments of the petitioner as also the documents relied upon establish that his claim pertain to employment in Haryana, namely, the office and establishment of the BSNL at Gurgaon. The dispute raised pertains to his claim for regularisation; his services have not been admittedly continued. On this, the respondents have denied the factum of employment and even genuineness of the documents. ( 8 ) IN these conspectus of facts, I am of the opinion that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by this court would not be a prudent one. On this, the respondents have denied the factum of employment and even genuineness of the documents. ( 8 ) IN these conspectus of facts, I am of the opinion that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by this court would not be a prudent one. If the petitioner is aggrieved either by his constructive dis-engagement or termination or by non-regularisation, the appropriate course for him to would be to approach the competent or appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act having jurisdiction over the subject matter, in Haryana. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above discussions, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act if he so advised. .