(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the questions raised by the respondent in her writ petition were disputed questions of fact. He took the view that the respondent should avail of the remedy provided by the Industrial Disputes Act and that her case was not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226. In the letters patent appeal filed by the respondent the division bench, by the order under appeal, came to the conclusion that the respondents writ petition would lie. Having come to that conclusion, it observed that the respondent could not be denied the right to the minimum scale of pay in the post of Typist in Category 3.

(3) WE find that whereas there has been an elaborate discussion of the conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable there has been little discussion of reason why relief was granted to the respondent. We think that the division bench ought to have remanded the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for consideration upon the basis that it was maintainable, and that is the order that we propose to pass.

(4) THE appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside i