The completion of work for a period of 240 days in each of the 3 consecutive years was found to be sufficient for entitlement to regularization under the U P. Industrial Disputes Act.

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri B. K. Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 2 ) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated July 22, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 21562 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the U P. Industrial Disputes Act.

( 3 ) SHORT facts involved in the writ petition as also in the special appeal, inter alia, are that the writ petitioner- appellant was originally appointed as apprentice on January 8, 1986 and was working as daily wager since January 10, 1987 in Nagar Nigam, Aligarh. In view of the government Order dated October 25, 1989, which provides that on cut off date i. e. October 11, 1989 if the daily wager has worked for 240 days continuously for three years, such daily wager is entitled for the benefit of regularisation. Accordingly, the writ-petitioner- appellant claims that since he has continuously worked for 240 days in each of the 3 years i. e. 1987, 1988 and 1989 as daily wage employee, by virtue of the Government order dated October 25, 1989 he is entitled to the benefit of regularisation.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the writ-petitioner-appellant has submitted that the writ-petition seeking regularisation of his service was filed by the petitioner before this court on July 25, 1991, which was entertained on July 29, 1991, This Court was pleased to direct issue of notice to the President, Nagar palika, Aligarh fixing September 4, 1991. The writ petition remained pending for a period of about eight years. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated July 22, 1999, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. According to him, the learned single judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, when the writ petition remained pending before this Court for eight long years. In support thereof the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner- appellant relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of L. Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 : 1970 (2) SCC 355.

( 5 ) SRI Narayan further submitted that leaving aside the period during which the petitioner had worked as apprentice and taking into account only three years i. e. 1987, 1988 and 1989, the writ- petitioner-appellant has continuously worked for 240 days in each of the 3 consecutive years and is accordingly entitled to the benefit of the regularisation under the said Government Order.

( 6 ) SO far as the question of relegating the writ petitioner- appellant to the alternative remedy available under the U. P. Industrial disputes Act is concerned, we find that the writ-petition was filed in the year 1991 and remained pending before this Court for eight years and therefore it would not be in the interest of justice to throw out the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In the case of l. Hirday Narain, (supra), the Honble Supreme court has held as follows:"12. An order under Section 35 of the income-Tax Act is not appellable. It is true that a petition to revise the order could be moved before the Commissioner of income-Tax. But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. If the High Court had not entertained his petition, Hirday Narain could have moved the Commissioner in revision, because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by Section 33-A of the act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income-Tax Officer under section 35, but was not moved, the High court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was enter