ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls çkFkZuk gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj jsLi¨uMsUV d¨ vknsf'kr djus dh Ñik djsa fd os ;kfpdkdrkZ d¨ tqykà 2018 ls orZeku le; rd dk laiw.kZ cdk;k U;wure osrueku nj ls Òqxrku djsa v©j çfrekg U;wure osrueku ;kfpdkdrkZ d¨ vnk fd;k tkos v©j ;kfpdkdrkZ d¨ çdj.k O;; ,oa vfÒÒk"kd 'kqYd 10]000@& #i, jsLi¨UMsUVl ls fnyk, tkus dh Ñik djsa vU; U;k;¨fpr lgk;rk ekuuh; U;k;ky; vuqlkj t¨ mfpr le>s og Òh fnyk, tkus dh Ñik djsaA 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar in Gram Panchayat Girgaon on 20.6.2014. Thereafter, his services have been merged with Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vide order dated 28.6.2018 (Annexure P/1). He is working as Chowkidar but respondent No.3 has paid only Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner since July, 2018. He has filed representation before respondent No.3 but same was not considered. Thereafter, he preferred W.P.No.11220/2020 before this Court which has been decided vide order dated 13.8.2020 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within three months, but the respondents have not duly considered the claim of the petitioner and without any reason rejected his claim by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Per contra, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 did not file any separate return. 4. Respondent No.3 has filed the return with submission that respondent has sought instruction from the higher officer seeking direction regarding absorption of such part time employees which is anticipated. Petitioner was temporarily permitted to work as part time Chowkidar awaiting decision from the higher authorities. However, neither services of the petitioner has been amalgamated till date nor there is any sanctioned vacant post of Chowkidar in the establishment of respondent No.3. Services of the employees of respondent No.3 is governs by M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 and the post of Chowkidar can be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment. Services of the employees of respondent No.3 is governs by M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 and the post of Chowkidar can be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment. Petitioner has raised various disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for redressal of his grievances, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Petition also suffers from delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be appointed on the permanent post of Chowkidar dehoring the rules. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record with due care. 6. In the earlier round of litigation vide order dated 13.8.2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of petitioner in W.P.No.11220/2020, Court has directed the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within three months but from perusal of order (Annexure P/5), it appears that respondent No.3 has disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner after taking instruction from the higher officers. 7. Respondent No.3 in his return has raised legal issue as primary contention that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to challenge the order (Annexure P/5) before the Labour Court having competent jurisdiction, therefore, without exhausting the aforesaid alternative and efficacious remedy, this petition is not maintainable before this Court. It is noteworthy that regarding the wages petitioner has to approach before the Labour Court having competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance under section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and under section 3 of M.P. Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, but petitioner has directly approached this Court without exhausting alternative and efficacious remedy available to him. 8. Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable to employees of a Municipal Council of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby if an employee of a Municipal Council in M.P. is not being paid the minimum wages as per the notified rates, he can file a claim under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to recover the difference in wages from his employer before the designated authority Commissioner or Labour Court. 9. 9. It is settled position of law that when a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the performance of the right has to be enforced in that specified manner alone (See Judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of [Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307 ]. 10. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44 has held that when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties. In Hameed Kunju v. Nizam (2017) 8 SCC 611 the apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine when there is statutory provision of appeal. In another case Ansal Housing and Construction Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 13 SCC 305 it has been held that when the remedy of statutory appeal is provided, then the said remedy has to be availed. 11. In view of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, this Court refrains from entertaining the present petition and relegates the petitioner to approach the Labour Court having competent jurisdiction by filing a petition under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and under Section 3 of M.P. Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962. 12. With aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.