WP(C) 121/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner s as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. I have al so heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the Coal India Ltd. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners numbering 27 hav e prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay extra overtime wages, gratuit y, CPF etc. stated to be payable to them by the respondent No. 3. While the writ petition was entertained by order dated 19.1.2009, the delay and laches in rais ing the grievance and also non-maintainability of the writ petition in view of a lternative remedy available in law was noted. The respondent No. 3 has filed an additional affidavit, in which it has been stated that all the petitioners had approached the controlling auth ority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming gratuity. Such approached was made during the pendency of the writ petition. As per the said affidavit, t he Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dibrugarh by his order dated 28.4.201 0 while disposing of the applications issued direction for payment of gratuity a nd consequently the respondent No. 3 has also paid gratuity. Above apart, it is the case of the respondent that the petitione rs were engaged by the contractor to perform contractual works under the respond ent No. 3 and 6, the said respondent is not liable to make any payment, the peti tioners being not direct recruits under it. The petitioners having already approached before the forum menti oned above, and also in view of the fact that disputed questions are involved, I am of the considered opinion that it will be appropriate for the petitioners to seek remedy elsewhere as may be available in law. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks lib erty to pursue the alternative remedy. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with the li berty to the petitioners to pursue alternative remedy as may be available in law .