Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts: regularisation claims based on factual controversy must be pursued through statutory labour remedies.

A writ petition seeking regularisation was held unsuitable where the claim turned on disputed facts, including whether the workmen had completed ten years of continuous service and whether the documents proved identity and continuity of employment. The Court reiterated that a writ court should not adjudicate contested factual questions and that the earlier order only preserved recourse to remedies available in law, namely the statutory machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The proper course was therefore to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy rather than invoke Article 226 for factual determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable for claiming regularisation and related reliefs on the basis of disputed facts, or whether the appellants were required to pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The claim depended on whether the concerned workmen had completed ten years of continuous service and on the evidentiary value of the documents produced to prove identity and continuity of employment. That issue was essentially factual. The earlier order of the Court had made it clear that any fresh dispute or grievance could be pursued by seeking a reference or by approaching the appropriate authority in accordance with law, which in context meant the statutory machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A writ court was not the proper forum to decide such disputed factual questions, and the remedy contemplated by the earlier order could not be expanded to treat the High Court itself as the statutory authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for adjudication of the disputed factual claims, and the appellants were left to pursue the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because no ground was made out for interference with the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not decide contested questions of fact, and where an earlier order reserves recourse to remedies available in law, the aggrieved party must pursue the appropriate statutory remedy rather than invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for factual adjudication.

---