( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the petitioner was a Muster Roll employee on daily wages in Zila Panchayat (Parishad), Fatehpur. According to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition he worked regularly for 3 years and in view of letter dated 16. 12. 1985 appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition he applied for regularization/permanent appointment. The letter dated 16. 12. 1985 shows that as far as regularization of the employees working on the posts of Mates/beldars are concerned, by XIth Amendment in the service rules of Zila Panchayat (Parishad) the posts have been included in Schedule ka, as such regularization of such employees may be undertaken. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that his juniors have been retained but his services have been terminated by oral order without giving any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing instead of regularization of his services in pursuance of letter dated 16. 12. 1985 referred to above. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit the stand of the respondent-Parishad is that the petitioner was engaged from time to time purely on temporary basis on daily wages on need basis and that his services were not continuous and that he was not appointed against any sanctioned post, hence there was no question of regularization of his services. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the certificate annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the writ petition showing dates of his working is a fabricated document and even the representation dated 21. 7. 1996 said to have been submitted by him to the Collector, Fatehpur, respondent no. 2 in paragraph 7 of the writ petition was never received in the office of respondent no. 2 as stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. ( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis on requirement of work and his services had come to an end when there was no work for him. He was never given any appointment against any sanctioned post, as such there was no question of giving any notice or opportunity of hearing as he was simply disengaged when there was no work available for him. He was never given any appointment against any sanctioned post, as such there was no question of giving any notice or opportunity of hearing as he was simply disengaged when there was no work available for him. In paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit it is stated that no junior to the petitioner is working as Beldar in Zila Panchayat, Fatehpur. The reply of paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit is given in paragraph 13 of the rejoinder affidavit as under: "that the contents of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit are emphatically denied and in reply the averments made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the writ petition are reiterated and the stand taken therein is reaffirmed. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as Muster Roll employee and not against any post and thus other muster roll employees junior to the petitioner whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 19 of the writ petition are still in service and termination of the petitioners services is wholly illegal. " ( 6 ) THE petitioner has neither filed any muster roll list to establish that it is maintained under rules and can be treated as seniority list nor any seniority list has been filed with the writ petition. ( 7 ) THE petitioner is a workman under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the averments made on record the certificate showing days of working of the petitioner vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition is a fabricated document and the dispute that the petitioner may or may not have any legal right to be regularized on the post requires adjudication on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution. A daily wager has no legal right to a sanctioned post. The claim for regularisation of the petitioner cannot be granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the apex court decision rendered in State of Punjab Vs Sardara Singh, (1998) 9 S. C. C. 709. A daily wager has no legal right to a sanctioned post. The claim for regularisation of the petitioner cannot be granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the apex court decision rendered in State of Punjab Vs Sardara Singh, (1998) 9 S. C. C. 709. ( 8 ) IN the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Chandrama Singh Vs Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and Others, (1991) 1 U. P. L. B. E. C (2) 898, it has been held that in cases of termination of an industrial employee the remedy lies before the Labour Court which is alternate and efficacious remedy. ( 9 ) IT is not feasible in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to take oral and documentary evidence for deciding disputed questions of facts. It has been the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court that wherever an alternate remedy is available it should not be bye-passed; as such, the petitioner has to approach this Court after exhausting alternate remedy. Reference in this regard may be made to Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. , and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. , Employees Union- (2005) 6 S. C. C. 725 and U. P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R. S. Pandey and another, (2005) 107 F. L. R. 729, wherein it has been held that in such cases the writ petition should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution unless a very strong case for interference is; made out ( 10 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance before the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has not been exhausted by him. ( 11 ) IN case an industrial dispute is raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer within one month, the Conciliation Officer shall try to amicably get the dispute settled between the parties, otherwise he shall refer it to appropriate Labour Court/industrial Tribunal. On reference the dispute may be decided by the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal in accordance with law within six months from the date of reference keeping in view limitation provided for such proceedings under Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. On reference the dispute may be decided by the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal in accordance with law within six months from the date of reference keeping in view limitation provided for such proceedings under Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. .