JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner, who was an employee of the respondents, had previously filed W.P No. 10261/2013(S) against the communication of an order by which he was informed that he would retire from service w.e.f. 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's date of birth is 24.7.1958 but the respondents have wrongly recorded his date of birth as 26.11.1952 in the service record. It was alleged that inspite of the petitioner's submitting all relevant documents before the authorities, no decision was taken by the authorities hence the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No. 10261/2013(S) which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.11.2013. However, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 1460/2013 modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the respondent authorities with a direction to the Age Determination Committee to decide the issue regarding the age of the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Age Determination Committee has again decided the matter against the petitioner and the same has been communicated to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 5.8.2014, hence this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had produced his School Examination Certificate as well as the pay slip issued by the respondent authorities, according to which the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.7.1958 but the Age Determination Committee has not taken the same into consideration. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that the Age Determination Committee has examined the entire case of the petitioner and has found that the mark sheet of the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination submitted by the petitioner is of the year 1985 whereas the petitioner was already in service since the year 1978 and, therefore, the Higher Secondary School Certificate could not be considered in view of Clause B(I)(A) of the Implementation Instruction 76. It is stated that the Age Determination Committee has also found that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the Form-B register on 26.11.1978 was 25 years and the same date of birth has also been recorded in the Form-B in the revised format of Bijuri Sub Area. It is stated that the Age Determination Committee has also found that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the Form-B register on 26.11.1978 was 25 years and the same date of birth has also been recorded in the Form-B in the revised format of Bijuri Sub Area. The Age Determination Committee has also found that the subsequent scoring out and replacing of the date of birth by 21.7.1958 on the basis of some alleged report of the Age Determination Committee is also unauthenticated as no record was available. It is submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the documents as well as the radiologically determined age of the petitioner, the Age Determination Committee has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the aforesaid aspect and averments, it is apparent that there is serious dispute between the parties regarding the fact as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 26.11.1952 or 21.7.1958. Apparently, this factual dispute cannot be decided by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, moreso as the appropriate alternative efficacious statutory remedy of getting the matter adjudicated under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, has already been provided to the petitioner. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Foods vs. S. Samuel and others, (2006) 5 SCC 469 , has held that a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner, in the following terms 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." 7. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 675 , in para 53 as follows:- "53. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 675 , in para 53 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." 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, it is apparent and clear that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute, if so advised. 9. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy provided under the Industrial Dispute Act, if so advised. 10. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does approach the Labour Court, it shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the petition, filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. 12. C.C as per rules.