JUDGMENT : R.S. JHA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 5.2.2013 issued by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been informed that he would superannuate from service as a Clerk Grade-A w.e.f. 31.12.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate Examination is 1.7.1957. It is stated that in such circumstances the petitioner had raised an objection to the recording of his date of birth on the basis of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 which was referred to the Age Determination Committee in view of the direction issued by this Court in the previous petition i.e. W.P No. 14501/2011. It is submitted that thereafter the Age Determination Committee, by the impugned order dated 5.2.2013 has rejected the petitioner's objection and has held that his date of birth is 13.12.1953. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Age Determination Committee is contrary to the clauses of Implementation Instruction No. 76. The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of a rejoinder has stated that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the declaration of the person employed in a coal mine issued for the purposes of computing the provident fund of the petitioner on 31.10.1979 is also 1.7.1957. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Age Determination Committee has not applied its mind to the facts of the case while deciding the petitioner's objection and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Age Determination Committee suffers from perversity and material illegality warranting interference by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that the Age Determination Committee has taken into consideration Form-B register maintained under the Mines Act at Bijuri Colliery; the document of transfer from Bijuri Colliery; the service register of the petitioner; the service extracts from the Register; P.S-3 and P.S-4 Form of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 31.12.1953 or 25 years as on 13.12.1978. The Age Determination Committee had also got a Radiological test of the petitioner conducted and after considering the aforesaid document as well as the Radiological test have rejected the petitioner's objection. The Age Determination Committee had also got a Radiological test of the petitioner conducted and after considering the aforesaid document as well as the Radiological test have rejected the petitioner's objection. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter has been considered by the Age Determination Committee and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. By way of a preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is in fact not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of raising a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Foods Vs. S. Samuel and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 469 , in support of his aforesaid submission. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Age Determination Committee has considered the rival submission of the petitioner as well as the department and has taken a decision with which the petitioner being dissatisfied and has raised several disputed questions of fact and in such circumstances the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the labour court invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, by taking up appropriate proceedings thereunder in accordance with law after the decision of the Age Determination Committee. 7. I am constrained to say so as the fact as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1957 or 13.12.1953 is a highly disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in similar situation has held that a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner in the case of A.P. Foods Vs. S. Samuel and Others, , wherein it has been held in para 13 as under:-- "13. As disputed questions of fact were involved, and alternative remedy is available under the ID Act, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, and should have directed the writ petitioners to avail the statutory remedy." 8. S. Samuel and Others, , wherein it has been held in para 13 as under:-- "13. As disputed questions of fact were involved, and alternative remedy is available under the ID Act, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, and should have directed the writ petitioners to avail the statutory remedy." 8. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 675 as follows:-- "53. Since we are of the view that one of the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court which decided the matter at the initial stage was right in relegating the petitioners to avail of alternative remedy under the Industrial Law and as we hold that the High Court should not have entertained the petition and decided the matter on merits, we clarify that though the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed, it is open to the employees to approach an appropriate Court/tribunal in accordance with law and to raise all contentions available to them. It is equally open to the Corporation and the State authorities to defend and support the action taken by them. As and when such a course is adopted by the employees, the court/tribunal will decide it strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners is dismissed by this Court." 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Labour Court in accordance with law. 10. At this stage it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been permitted to continue in service though his age of superannuation according to the impugned order passed by the respondents is 31.12.2013. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is observed that the Labour Court shall decide the matter by taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in case it ultimately finds that the petitioner's contention are correct and allows his claim, appropriate relief in that regard may be granted to him in accordance with law. 12. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is observed that the Labour Court shall decide the matter by taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in case it ultimately finds that the petitioner's contention are correct and allows his claim, appropriate relief in that regard may be granted to him in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the petition, filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. 13. C.C. as per rules.