ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is said to be a Registered Trade Union which has preferred this writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the Members of the petitioner-Union who are said to be working under the respondents since the year 1977 onwards under different labour contractors on casual basis. 3. It is submitted that these engagements have been made against the sanctioned and vacant posts. Therefore, Members of the petitioner-Union should be regularized in services. Annexure-1 which is an office order no. 7899 dated th December 1977 issued by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board indicates that the services of certain persons engaged on casual basis through contractors and enumerated as contract labour / labour supply workers of this project, were taken in temporary service. Annexure-2 is said to be a list of workers who were engaged in P.T.P.S. through contractual engagement through contractors. The said list appears to have been prepared in 2003 and apparently, contains the names of 560 of such daily wage workers engaged on casual basis through contractors. The petitioner in the instant circumstances, has prayed that if the respondents do not regularize the concerned workmen, they would be denied the benefit of permanent and regular service under the respondent P.T.P.S. Therefore, they have approached this court in the present writ application. 4. Counsel for the respondent JSEB has submitted that the claim of the petitioner, which is a Trade Union, relating to regularization of more than 500 workmen said to have been engaged in 1977 itself, is the question of fact determinable by the appropriate industrial court where the petitioner are required to approach in accordance with law, if at all they are interested in pursing their claim. By referring to annexure-4 which is a communication of the General Manager dated 30th March 2005, it has been pointed out that the claim of such persons for regularization has already been raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner by the respondent Union. It is submitted that a perusal of the list enclosed to Annexure-2, would show that the age of the concerned persons said to be engaged on causal basis through contractors, are between 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that they have been engaged from 1977, cannot be correct. It is submitted that a perusal of the list enclosed to Annexure-2, would show that the age of the concerned persons said to be engaged on causal basis through contractors, are between 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that they have been engaged from 1977, cannot be correct. In response, counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the age given by the concerned workmen at the time of their initial engagement. Respondents have therefore contested the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the said relief dependent upon the determination of the disputed questions of fact, can only be adjudicated before the appropriate Industrial Court where questions of law as well as fact, can be adjudicated upon adducing of evidence by the parties. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is evident that the claim raised by the petitioner-Union is in respect of the workmen who are said to be engaged through contractors in the Patratu Thermal Power Station since 1977 itself. A perusal of Annexure-4 also indicates that the case of the concerned workmen has been espoused before the concerned labour authority for reference of the adjudication by the Industrial Court. The list enclosed to Annexure-2 apparently comprises 560 persons, is said to have been prepared in 2003. The matter relating to regularization of the individual persons contained in the said list, would require determination of the various questions of fact including their initial engagement and continuous engagement thereafter for certain period as required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, availability of sanctioned and vacant post in the respondent organization. It further appears that if the engagement is through a contractor, then provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act may also apply and such dispute can be properly adjudicated by the competent Industrial Court. 6. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner-Union for regularization of several such persons said to have been engaged on casual basis through different labour contractors since 1977, in any case, cannot be determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner-Union for regularization of several such persons said to have been engaged on casual basis through different labour contractors since 1977, in any case, cannot be determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. As indicated herein-above, the matter involves determination of the various disputed questions of fact, this Court is therefore not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. However, the petitioner may have the remedy before an appropriate Industrial Court where they may raise their grievances, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.