- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-8-1992, Annexure-VII to the writ petition, by which D. I. O. S. , Meerut has refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar at Maharana Pratap Inter College, Mawana and has refused to pay salary of the petitioner. It has been submitted that regarding Class-IV employee the right to appoint vests with the Principal of the College and the D. I. O. S. has power to approve to the appointment and pay salary unless the appointment is made in excess of the sanctioned strength. It has further been submitted that D. I. O. S. , Meerut in compliance of provisions of employment of dependents of employees Dying in Harness Rules, directed the Principal of Maharana Pratap Inter College vide letter dated 8-8-1991 to appoint Dinesh Kumar son of late Ram Nath, who was working as music teacher. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut had informed the Principal that a vacancy was created on the death of Sri Ram Nath, who died during his service period, hence there is a provision to appoint the dependent of Late Ram Nath and it is not possible to approve the appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition. The petitioner is not a Government employee as he is an employee of a recognised college managed by a private Committee of Management. Hence, the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has raised disputed questions of facts in the present writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated except by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The question for approval to the appointment of the petitioner falls within the realms of the labour Court which provides for adjudication in respect of approval of a workman including payment of salary to the post of Chaukidar. This Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts. In these circumstances, it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the labour Court.;