ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 5-8-1999 whereby the petitioner has been removed as a casual labourer in the employment of Doordarshan Kendra Jaipur (hereinafter 'the respondent'). Oddly compliance with the award dated 18-4-1998, passed by the Judge Industrial Tribunal Central, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal'), has also been sought even though admittedly the petitioner to his admission was reinstated thereupon only thereafter removed. 2. The facts on record of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a casual labourer on 24-11-1987 on daily wages of Rs.13/- per day. He was removed from service from 6-5-1988 by a verbal order. That order was disputed and following failure of reconciliation, a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the 1947 Act') followed at the instance of the State Government. The Labour Court found contravention of Section 25-G of the 1947 Act and directed the petitioner's reinstatement. The petitioner thereafter was admittedly reinstated on 27-5-1999, following the Labour Court's award dated 18-4-1998. But soon after having joined on 10-6- 1999, effective 1-8-1999 the petitioner was removed again vide order dated 5-8-1999. The stated reason for removal was that the work assigned was no more available. It was however also stated that the petitioner would be informed and given the option to rejoin as a casual labourer in the event of casual work again being available in the office of the respondent. 3. The petitioner has in the circumstances challenged the order dated 5-8-1999 by which he was removed and has prayed that the removal aforesaid in effect entails non compliance with the Labour Court's award dated 18-4-1998, which therefore be implemented by issue of a writ of mandamus. 4. Reply to the petition has been filed. Admitting the reinstatement of the petitioner as a casual worker on 10-6-1999, under the award dated 18-4-1998 and his removal vide order dated 5-8-1999 for lack of work, it has been submitted that vide order dated 29-11-1999 the petitioner was required to join again as a casual worker, but he did not do so. It has been submitted that in the circumstances the removal of the petitioner entails no legal infraction of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act or any other law. It has been submitted that in the circumstances the removal of the petitioner entails no legal infraction of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act or any other law. And in any event if at all it does, the petitioner ought to have availed his remedy under the Act of 1947. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. On the petitioner's own admission of reinstatement on 10-6-1999 following the award dated 18-4-1998 passed by the Labour Court for reason of finding contravention of Section 25G of the 1947 Act, the prayer in the petition for enforcement of the said award is misdirected. With regard to the petitioner's removal under order dated 5-8-1999, in my considered view, the issue is amenable to the alternative remedy under the 1947 Act. Aside of the above, the circumstances of the petitioner's removal vide order dated 5- 8-1999 and the assertion of the department about offering him reemployment as a casual worker when available are question of facts better determined in a regular trial before a Labour Court. 7. In the circumstances, having heard counsel for the petitioner and having perused and considered the material available on record of the petition, I find no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be free to avail his other remedy as available in law.