JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner claims to be a Class III employee of the U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Ltd. (UPICA). He further claims to have been posted as a Salesman in a Unit of the UPICA Handloom House, Civil Lines, Azamgarh on a consolidated salary/wages at the rate of Rs. 3,149/- per month. The petitioner has sought the relief of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.1.2007 appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition by which he has been directed to receive his retrenchment compensation etc. from the Head Office. 3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on 27.8.1984 as a daily wage salesman at Basti in UPICA Sales Centre. The term of appointment of the petitioner expired on 30.6.1985 and was extended by the Managing Director on 1.7.1985 till further orders. 4. It further appears that the Managing Director vide letter dated 18.2.1991 had ordered that 38 salesmen including the petitioner may not be permitted to work on ad-hoc/temporary post in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 till their services are approved by the Board for regularization and that out of them six employees are said to have been regularized who are claimed to be junior to him. 5. The petitioner represented the matter to the authorities for regularization by means of application dated 2.4.1991 and further reminders dated 7.12.1991, 14.1.1992, 4.2.1992 and 11.6.1993, but it is alleged that no action was taken by the respondents on his application or the reminders. The petitioner again moved a representation dated 30.7.1993 alongwith a chart giving the names of his juniors who have been regularized in service. The recommendation is said to have been made by the Sales Manager on the aforesaid representation recommending for regularization of services of the petitioner. 6. It is stated that no response having been received from the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 11454 of 1995 which was disposed of by order dated 7.3.2005 with direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for the purposes of regularization according to law by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 7. 7. Consequently the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 26.7.2005 passed by the Board rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that 14 daily wage salesmen senior to the petitioner are yet to be regularised. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Board the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11520 of 2006, Rakesh Bahadur Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, which was dismissed on 24.2.2006 on the ground of alternative remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. 9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Azamgarh by filing a petition under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case was thereafter transferred to the Labour Commissioner, Mau and was registered as Industrial Dispute No. CB/07. In the aforesaid conciliation proceedings the Conciliation Officer by order dated 18.1.2007 issued notices to the opposite parties fixing 28.2.2007 for appearance. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 31.1.2007 was passed by the U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Ltd., Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur retrenching the services of the petitioner and directing him to hand over charge on 31.1.2007 to get retrenchment compensation etc. from the Head Office. 10. In the circumstances the petitioner moved an application before the Conciliation Officer on 13.2.2007 in the pending conciliation proceedings on which notices were issued to the respondents by the Conciliation Officer vide order dated 14.2.2007. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that instead of granting interim relief the Conciliation Officer has only issued notice by endorsement dated 14.2.2007 on the said application and did not consider the aforesaid facts which were brought to his notice by filing the impugned order with the application for interim relief on 13.2.2007. 12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that under the Rehabilitation Scheme of UPICA the Government by G.O. No. 859/63 dated 31.3.2006 and G.O. No. 3153 (l)/63 dated 31.1.2007 has released the sanctioned money for retrenchment of Daily Wage Clerks/Salesmen/Guards and Class-IV employees working in the Institution. 12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that under the Rehabilitation Scheme of UPICA the Government by G.O. No. 859/63 dated 31.3.2006 and G.O. No. 3153 (l)/63 dated 31.1.2007 has released the sanctioned money for retrenchment of Daily Wage Clerks/Salesmen/Guards and Class-IV employees working in the Institution. Consequently the services of all the daily wage workers were terminated w.e.f. 31.1.2007 including the petitioner who was directed to hand over charge on 31.1.2007 and take retrenchment compensation after submitting no dues certificate failing which the employee himself would be responsible for non-payment of the said amount. 13. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is highly misconceived as he has not arrayed the Regional Conciliation Officer as a party in the writ petition on the wrong presumption that the conciliation proceedings are pending before the Labour Court. 14. Admittedly the petitioner has raised industrial dispute regarding regularization in service in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on his writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 15. The Conciliation Officer had called upon the respondents for, conciliation. In the meantime the petitioner’s services had been retrenched alongwith other employees under the Rehabilitation Scheme of UPICA by the Government orders dated 31.3.2006 and 31.1.2007. The employees aforesaid have also been offered retrenchment compensation in accordance with law. 16. On the application of the petitioner regarding his illegal retrenchment the Conciliation Officer has also issued notices to the respondents for conciliation. This has rightly been done by him as the Conciliation Officer is only an authority and not a Court. It does not have any power to grant interim orders/injunction as exercised by Courts. He could only make reference to the Labour Court if the parties do not come to amicable settlement of dispute before him. The petitioner was not a permanent employee but a daily wager, hence it cannot be stated that disengagement of his services as daily wager amounts to termination of his services bringing about change in his service conditions. 17. Since the authority has already issued notices to the respondents calling upon them for conciliation on the following disputes : 1. Regularization of the petitioner in service 2. Alleged illegal termination of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007 in the writ petition. 18. 17. Since the authority has already issued notices to the respondents calling upon them for conciliation on the following disputes : 1. Regularization of the petitioner in service 2. Alleged illegal termination of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007 in the writ petition. 18. It appears that the intention of the authorities concerned is to refer the matter for adjudication in case of failure of conciliation proceedings. 19. Since the aforesaid matters require finding of fact and the conciliation proceedings have already been initiated in this matter, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 20. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 21. It is, however, expected that the authority concerned will proceed with the conciliation and bring the matter to its logical conclusion within a shortest possible time in accordance with law. ————