MUDRIKA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition impugns the order of termination dated 28.2.2000 (Annexure A/9), whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that his service was no longer required.

(2.) THE indisputably facts, relevant in the case, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wages worker to look after cycle-stand by order dated 31.3.1986 (Annexure A/1) for a period of three months on temporary basis. Thereafter by order dated 5.8.1986 (Annexure A/2), the petitioner was assigned the work of bell boy. Vide order dated 11.11.1989, (Annexure A/3), the petitioner was appointed as night chowkidar. The petitioner was further assigned the work in the office of the Additional Director by order dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure A/4). Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis for a period of 89 days by order dated 18.4.1990 (Annexure A/5).

(3.) THE services of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 28.2.2000 (Annexure A/9) after a period of 9 years and 5 months as no longer required. Before termination order was passed and given effect to, the petitioner was given one month's advance notice and payment of Rs. 16223/- as retrenchment compensation. The impugned termination order dated 28.2.2000, it appears was passed under provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, it was not the case of even the respondents that the Government Science College, Raipur is an industry.