( 1 ) THIS is writ petition filed by petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India alleging that they have been working as daily-rated workers under the respondent Corporation on the post of "safal Karamchari" for more than 240 days and are entitled to be regularised to the said posts, but the respondent is in a malafide manner continuing them as daily-rated workers as a result whereof their salaries are considerably lower than the salaries paid to permanent employees appointed to similar posts and performing similar work and have prayed for-

" (A) issue of a writ of mandamus directing, the respondents for continuation of the services of the petitioners on the post of "safai Karmachari". (b) a direction to the respondents for regularising the services of the petitioners and to appoint them in the permanent post of their services whenever, vacancy in the permanent post of their service will occur. (c) that the respondents may kindly he prohibited or restrained by issuance of a writ of prohibition to disturb the continuance of the services of the petitioners; (d) that the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the same emoluments to the petitioners which are paid to the regular "safai Karmachari".

( 2 ) THIS Court issued notice on the said writ petition and a reply thereto was filed by the respondents wherein certain preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended that the allegations in the petition involved determination of rights and grant of remedies which are provided for under the Industrial Disputes Act, that-the petitioners have the adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available and that the subject matter of the present petition involved determination of disputed questions of facts, which can. be determined on the basis of the evidence and that tor these reasons this court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) AT the time of hearing lengthy arguments were addressed on the question of maintainability of the petition and also as to whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as amended from time to time afforded the petitioners an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy. After hearing the parties for a while, I considered it appropriate tn appoint an amicus curiae for my assistance. Consequently I appointed on 1st September 1992 Mr. S. N. Bhandari, Advocate, as an amicus curiae to assist the court on the said preliminary objection. The arguments were concluded by Mr. Bhandari. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner sought time on a number of occasions to prepare for arguments. Finally, the petitioners filed a written note and concluded their arguments. The amicus curiae was required to assist further which he did by submitting a note of the arguments.

( 4 ) AT this stage, the arguments have been heard only on the preliminary objection, i. e. , whether the discretion of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in a case of present nature where adequate and efficacious remedy is alleged to be available to the petitioners under the Industrial Disputes Act, W47; and (2) whether the allegations of fact in the petition are such as would require determination of dis- puted questions of fact and for that reason also this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE question that first falls for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act provide an adequate and effcacious alternate remedy to the petitioners. Although the petitioners have contended that they have no other alternative remedy, a perusal of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 brings out a different picture. The Industrial Disputes Act was amended vide Act 46 of 1982 and that the amendments came into force w. e. f