IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 5A of 2003 (S/S) Darshan Singh and others ..……… Petitioners Versus Food Co-operation of India and others ……… Respondents. Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The petitioners’ were working in the Food Corporation of India at Rudrapur Food Storage Depot through a contractor and, on account of some dispute, the depot at Rudrapur had closed down. A lot of hue and cry was raised by the contractor and the contract workers with regard to the closure of the depot at Rudrapur. It transpires that a five member Committee was constituted and a report was submitted in which a list of labourers working at Rudrapur depot was enclosed. It is alleged that some of the workers enclosed in the said list was allowed to work but others were not allowed and, accordingly, the present writ petition was filed by those workers who were not allowed to work praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to work at Rudrapur Food Storage Depot and also pay them the salary alongwith arrears. An interim order dated 27/11/1996 was passed directing respondents to permit those workers, whose name was recommended by the Committee as indicated in Annexure-10 of the writ petition, to work and pay them the salary. This Court, during the course of hearing, found that the petitioners are not working in the Rudrapur Food Storage Depot. This Court finds that there is a lot of factual dispute between the 2 petitioners and the respondents with regard to the nature of work, their status coupled with the fact that it is not clear as to whether they are workers of contractors or were directly engaged by the employers. In view of the aforesaid factual dispute, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition cannot be adjudicated and that the petitioners necessarily have to be relegated to an alternate forum where they can raise an industrial dispute. This writ petition is consequently dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.05.2010 Shiv