D. P. Singh, J. - (1.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged between the parties and they agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of under the rules of the Court.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These group of writ petitions, substantially raise identical issues with some difference on facts, which is immaterial for their decision, therefore, all of them can be disposed of together. For the sake of convenience facts of Writ Petition No. 35574 of 1994 are being noted and the said writ petition shall be the leading case. The petitioner was appointed as a mali/chaukidar with effect from 1st of August, 1980 and worked intermittently through various appointment letters till 30th September, 1994. After 30th September, 1994, he was not allowed to work, allegedly on the ground that his appointment was contractual. Through the present writ petition he has sought the relief of absorption in the U. P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation). Normally, this Court does not interfere in such matters, but presently we shall deal with this issue and see whether this Court should exercise its discretion or not.
(3.) THE U. P. Financial Corporation is a corporate body established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. It is completely controlled by the State Government and is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the corporation that the relief for which the petitioner has approached this Court can conveniently be granted by the labour court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy. In support of his aforesaid contention, the counsel for the corporation has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in V.S.T. Industries Ltd. v. V.S.T. Industries Workers' Union and another, 2001 (1) AWC 2.7 (SC) (NOC) : JT 2001 (1) SC 36 ; Scooters India and others v. Vijai E. V. Eldred, JT 1998 (8) SC 204 and in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, (1997) 4 SCC 391. Further reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : (1991) 2 UPLBEC 898. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has urged that the writ petition was entertained and heard on merits by this Court and it has been pending in this Court for the last about nine years where pleadings have already been exchanged, therefore, at this stage the writ petition may not be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy. Further, it is stated that the action of the corporation is in violation of the principles of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dr. Balkrishna Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others, 1995 (1) AWC 509 (SC) : (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1055 ; L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 and also a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Pradeep Kumar Singh v. State Sugar Corporation, 2001 (4) AWC 3032 : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2571.;