JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2018, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against his termination during the period of probation from the post of Driver, was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 2. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, held that the appellant-petitioner being workman can get an industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the writ petition cannot be entertained because it involves disputed question of facts. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner cited a judgment dated 08.05.2017 of learned Single Judge in a batch of two writ petitions, being Writ Petition No.11365/2015, Ram Kishan Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, and Writ Petition No.9915/2015, Babu Lal Meena Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and Others. In that case, Babu Lal Meena was a Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. His services were terminated during probation period. The learned Single Judge therein directed that if the petitioner raises a dispute under Section 10A of the Act of 1947 before the Tribunal by putting up his claim, the Tribunal/Labour Court shall consider the same and decide the dispute within a period of nine months from the date of submission of such a claim. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner submitted that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Babu Lal Meena was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of appeal, being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1568/2017, Babu Lal Meena Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.12.2017 directing his reinstatement as a probationer and the respondents were held entitled to hold an enquiry against the appellant pertaining to the alleged misdemeanour. The back wages for the intervening period was denied to the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner submitted that aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18683/2018, and the Supreme Court by order dated 03.07.2018 dismissed the same. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.12.2017 has thus attained finality. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar Vs. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.12.2017 has thus attained finality. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 485, in which case also the order of termination of a probationer Conductor from service was passed with certain allegation without enquiry. The Division Bench held that alternative remedy is no bar in such a case for entertaining of the writ petition and set aside the order of termination. 6. Even though learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition but could not dispute that the view taken by learned Single Judge in the similar case of Babu Lal Meena, supra, was reversed by the Division Bench of this Court and the SLP filed thereagainst by the respondent RSRTC has been dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The judgment dated 04.12.2017 of the Division Bench in Babu Lal Meena, supra, reads thus:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is a case where during probation service of the appellant was terminated by an order which is ex facie stigmatic. The view taken by the learned Single Judge to relegate the appellant to remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not a correct view because a Division Bench of this Court has already held in the decision reported as 2008 WLC (Raj.) 485, Ram Gurjar Vs. RSRTC, that availability of alternative remedy is no ground to refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction where on the face of it the order has to be quashed. 3. We dispose of the writ-appeal quashing the order dated 04.03.2015 as also the appellate order dated 17.06.2015. The appellant is directed to be reinstated as a probationer. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to hold an enquiry against the appellant pertaining to the alleged misdemeanour. We deny back wages to the appellant. Compliance shall be made with this order by the respondents within four weeks from today.” 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case also the appellant-petitioner was working on the post of Driver on probation and his services were terminated by order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), which is apparently a stigmatic order. Compliance shall be made with this order by the respondents within four weeks from today.” 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case also the appellant-petitioner was working on the post of Driver on probation and his services were terminated by order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), which is apparently a stigmatic order. The ratio of the Division Bench Judge in Babu Lal Meena’s case, supra, would apply to the case of the appellant-petitioner for all the purposes. 10. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The order of termination dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant-petitioner on the post of Driver on probation. However, the respondents would be at liberty to hold departmental enquiry against the appellant petitioner pertaining to alleged misconduct. The appellant petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service but the period of probation shall be extended for the remainder period of probation and he will not be discontinued. The appellant petitioner was appointed on 17.07.2014 on probation for a period of two years and therefore on reinstatement he shall be reinstated again on probation on the same terms and conditions. 11. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of four weeks from today. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. This also disposes of the stay application.