JUDGMENT : The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has challenged the order dated 31st January, 2019 and 4th February, 2019 as well as the termination order dated 8th February, 2019 from the post of Class-III employee, whereby, the services of the petitioner has been terminated due to non compliance of orders passed by his superiors. As a consequence of non-compliance of the order of transfer dated 31st January, 2019, by virtue of which, his services stood transferred Public Rehabilitation Office at Hyderabad, the ground which has been agitated by the petitioner is that the respondents have taken an action of transferring the petitioner, who has described his status as to be of a Daily Wager is on the ground that since he had filed Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 516 of 2017 (S/S), seeking for a prayer of regularization, which is pending consideration before this Court, has resulted into passing of the order of transfer of the petitioner on 31.01.2019 as a vengeance. 2. It is also an admitted fact as pleaded by the petitioner himself in the writ petition in its para 3, which reads as under :- “That brief facts given rise to the petition are that the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam being an industrial establishment having so many commercial and industrial activities like tourism. Since the respondent corporation is a government owned corporation is awarded work for collecting sands and boulders from the rivers although the same cannot be come strictly as mining activity. However, the employees working with the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam used to engage to work in these activities and thereafter assign to work in different fields of the corporation. However, for the purpose of their employment, the entire establishment is a one unit. Apart from this, the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing orders Act and Model Standing Order framed there under are applicable on the respondent corporation.” 3. However, for the purpose of their employment, the entire establishment is a one unit. Apart from this, the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing orders Act and Model Standing Order framed there under are applicable on the respondent corporation.” 3. The petitioner himself admits that the respondents Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited is an “Industrial Establishment” and because of that earlier also, against an order of termination dated 08.07.2008 of the services of the petitioner, he has approached the Industrial Tribunal by seeking a reference and that reference is pending consideration before the said Labour Court by way of Adjudication Case No. 90 of 2009, wherein, following reference has been made :- ^^vkS|ksfxd fookn ¼nks dk fooj.k½** 1- D;k lsok;kstd }kjk of.kZr lwph esa mfYyf[kr Jfedksa dh lsok,sa fnukad 08 tqykbZ 2008 dks lekIr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh \ 2- D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk layXu lwph esa of.kZr Jfedksa dh lsok lekIr djus ds mijkUr mUgsa iqu vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud \ ;fn ugh arks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS A 3- D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk fookfnr Jfedksa dks vuqcU/k /kkjk 4 vkbZ dk mYya?ku lsok ‘krksZa esa ifjorZu djuk mfpr@oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks”k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \ 4- D;k lsok;kstd }kjk fookfnr deZpkfj;ksa ls vuqcU/k Hkjk;k tkuk mfpr@oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lEcf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks”k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk \ 5- D;k nSfud deZpkjh leku dke dk leku dk;Z dh lqfo/kk NqfVV;kWa dke ds ?kaVs ikus ds vf/kdkjh \ ;fn gkWa rks lEcf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks”k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk\ 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has also drawn the proceedings under Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 22.07.2010 by filing Misc. Case No. 38 of 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner has also drawn the proceedings under Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 22.07.2010 by filing Misc. Case No. 38 of 2010. The said proceedings under Section 6-F for grant of interim relief which was rejected by the Labour Court on 25.08.2010, the application was rejected for the following reasons : ^^vUrfje lgk;rk ds ÁkFkZuk i= ds iSjk 4 esa Jfedksa dh rjQ ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd o”kkZdky esa [kuu dk;Z esa f’kfFkyrk gksus ij Hkh mUgsa osru fn;k tkrk FkkA bl fooj.k ls Li”V Árhr gksrk gS fd Á’uxr Jfed [kuu dk;Z esa yxs gq, Fks [kuu dk;Z fufoZokn :i ls ek= tehu ds uhps ds [kuu rd gh lhfer ugha gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Hkxoku nkl cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 ,-vkbZ-vkj 1976 lqizhe dksVZ 2993 esa Li”V :i ls dgk gS fd unh fdukjksa ls feujy vFkkZr ckyw vkfnu gVkuk Hkh [kuu dh ifjHkk”kk esa vk;sxk vkSj ,sls esa vkS|ksfxe fookn lanfHkZr djus dks {ks=kf/kdkj ek= dsUæh; ljdkj dks gksxk ijUrq bl dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ er O;Dr djuk mfr Árhr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd vHkh i{kksa ds fyf[kr dFku vkus gSa A** 5. As against the decision taken by the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the Misc. Case No. 38 of 2010, which the petitioner has preferred under Section 6-F of the Act, to be decided with the principal Adjudication Case N. 90 of 2009, he has preferred a Writ Petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 1659 of 2010 (M/S), which stood disposed of by an order dated 27th September, 2016, with the following directions :- “Considering the facts of the instant case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization on the basis of the seniority list within a period of four weeks from today. The respondents are directed not to show any displeasure to the workmen for approaching this Court and their services shall not be terminated without the leave of this Court. With the observation made above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ” 6. The respondents are directed not to show any displeasure to the workmen for approaching this Court and their services shall not be terminated without the leave of this Court. With the observation made above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ” 6. The direction as issued therein by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27th September, 2016, in fact, the relief sought by the petitioner against order 25.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1659 of 2010, Court has not adjudicated the same on merits, so far it relates to the rejection of application under Section 6-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or pendency of the Writ Petition No. 516 of 2017 (S/S), where the petitioner has raised a claim for regularization has got no nexus with the present relief which has been sought in the present writ petition against termination of his services, which is emanating from altogether a new cause of action of termination of his services on account of non compliance of the order of transfer dated 31.01.2019 and 04.02.2019. But the fact remains that the petitioner admits the status of respondents being that of an Industrial Establishment and further that the Industrial Employment Standing Orders are applicable to the establishment of respondents. The same read as under :- “That apart from this the respondent corporation is an industrial establishment and the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing orders are applicable on the respondent establishment. The state government has framed Model Standing orders under the aforesaid Act which are having overriding effect to all service rules and regulations. Since the petitioner is entitled to be classified as permanent workmen under the Model Standing orders as well as his service conditions are governed by this Model Standing orders. The transfer order is itself is not permissible outside the state in terms of rule 13 without its prior consent. Since the petitioner is entitled to be classified as permanent workmen under the Model Standing orders as well as his service conditions are governed by this Model Standing orders. The transfer order is itself is not permissible outside the state in terms of rule 13 without its prior consent. In the instant case the transfer order to Hyderabad is made without prior consent of the petitioner and he has highlighted his grievances against the said transfer order but the respondent no.2 is adamant to give effect the transfer order and terminated the services of the petitioner even without giving any opportunity of hearing to him irrespective of this fact that the petitioner under compelling circumstances and due to coercion has made a request that he is ready to join at Hyderabad but prior to this his services was dismissed even without conducting and enquiry or without the procedure prescribed under Rule 23 of the Model Standing Orders. Since the misconduct is define under Rule 20 of the Model Standing orders and penalty is provided for misconduct under Rule 21. Therefore, the punishment which is awarded for non compliance of transfer order is without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 23, itself liable to be declared illegal and unconstitutional. A true copy of the Model Standing Orders Act is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition.” 7. In that view of the matter that as against the order of termination, once the petitioner himself approached the Industrial Tribunal by raising the Adjudication Case No. 90 of 2009, which is pending, the remedy as available against the impugned order of termination, would lie before the Industrial Tribunal. 8. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on ground of alternative remedy. 9. After passing of the order, dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has got a remedy available to him before the Industrial Tribunal because of the reasons already assigned above, the counsel for the petitioner has expressed his displeasure that this Court has not considered his argument. Whatever has been argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been considered and recorded. Whatever has been argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been considered and recorded. The gestures extended is not expected by an Advocate, who is an officer of this Court and who is responsible to maintain the same discipline in the court proceedings. The Court expresses its anguish against the behaviour of the Counsel. 10. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has any grievance, he may seek his remedy as available to him against the impugned order.