ORDER : Subodh Abhyankar, J. Heard finally. 2. This order shall also govern the disposal of the other connected writ petitions as all of them have arisen out of same order dated 23-12-2022, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that these petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are contractual employees, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23-12-2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Manawar, whereby, the services of the petitioners have been done away with on the ground of paucity of funds. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for instance, Dheeraj Jaiswal, the petitioner in W.P. No. 260/2023 was working since 2019 and was getting a salary of Rs.12,818/- and his services have been terminated without even issuing a show cause notice, and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to him. Counsel has also submitted that in similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 22877 of 2022, vide order dated 21-8-2023 has allowed the petition and has also held that financial difficulty cannot be a ground to terminate the services of contractual employees. 5. The petition is opposed by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Chief Municipal Officer, Manawar by filing a reply. A preliminary objection has also been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 stating that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners must establish their rights under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) and the remedy under the Act of 1947 is the only remedy available to the petitioner and the petition cannot be entertained. It is also submitted that the petitioners’ services were purely contractual in nature and their services have been terminated only on account of the financial difficulties faced by the respondent No. 3, and since the respondent No. 3 does not require the services of the petitioners anymore and they were appointed only to carry out such work which was available in the Municipal Council at that time, no purpose would be served to keep their employment continued. It is also submitted that mere appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis gives them no right to continue in the service and on this ground also, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of his submissions, counsel for the respondent No. 3 has relied upon decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra vs. Jalagaon Municipal Corporation, reported as (2013) 2 SCC 751 and State of Uttarakhand and another vs. Raj Kumar, reported as (2019) 14 SCC 353 . Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 23-12-2022 issued by the Chief Municipal Council, Manawar reveals that services of 55 daily wager employees have been terminated with immediate effect. Although no reasons have been assigned in this order, but it refers to another order dated 20-12-2022, issued by the Deputy Director, Nagariya Prashasan and Vikas Indore, Division Indore 9. On perusal of the order dated 20-12-2022 issued by the Office of the Deputy Director Nagariya Prashasan and Vikas Indore, Division Indore, it reveals that it is addressed to the Municipal Councils of Khargone, Dhar and Pithampur, and states that many councils have informed that as their establishment costs are more than 65% to 75%, hence, it is not possible for them to appoint any person on contractual basis, hence, it is directed that no daily wagers shall be appointed if the establishment charges are more than 65%-75% or where no workmen are required on contractual basis. 10. It is also found that so far as the reply filed by the Municipal Council is concerned, it is specifically pleaded that the petitioners are daily wagers and at the time of engagement of their services, no recruitment process/procedure was followed, nor names from the employment exchange were called and the petitioners were taken as per the requirement of the work on muster roll and the petitioners were also not engaged against any specific post nor have worked on any specific post. It is also stated that mere proposal No. 157 dated 8-6-2020 filed as Annexure-P/3 with the petition, does not create any right in favour of the petitioners and the same cannot in any way help the petitioners, as it clearly shows that the muster karmi are being re-engaged for work. It is also specifically pleaded that the expenditure of the establishment was more than 65%, therefore, there was no question of re-employment of the petitioners. 11. Heard. In the considered opinion of this Court, in such facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners cannot force the respondent No. 3 to keep them in service especially when the respondents are also facing financial problems and the petitioners’ services were also temporary in nature. So far as the decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 22877/2022 dated 21-8-2023 is concerned, it is found that in that case, only a resolution was passed to terminate the services of the petitioners and thus, the respondents were directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners whereas, in the present case the respondents have also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (supra), which, in the considered opinion of this Court deals with the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition, and although in the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has disposed of the appeal while directing the respondents to pay certain compensation to the employees, however, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners can very well ventilate the grievance before the Industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. 12. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out and the petitions are liable to be dismissed, however, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse of the remedies as are available to them under law. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not reflected upon the merits of the case. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.