AJAY KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9.6.1999, working as a Scooter Mechanic at the ACC Taurus Canteen, the petitioner was called upon to respond as to why his services be not terminated on account of closure of the Scooter Repair Section of the Taurus Canteen stating that the Repair Section was incurring regular losses. It was informed that the notice was issued as per para 13(j) of the Taurus Shopping Arcade Standing Orders. The petitioner responded by informing that he was an employee in the Vehicle Mechanical Department and not the Scooter Mechanical Department. He informed that he was not working as a Vehicle Mechanic but was doing duties as a driver. Rejecting his representation, vide order dated 16.7.1999, the petitioner was informed that his services stood terminated on account of closure of the Scooter Repair Section of the Auto Care Centre of Taurus Canteen.

(2.) Petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner and since conciliation failed, a Reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal and after participating before the Industrial Tribunal from the year 1999 till the year 2005, petitioner withdrew the claim before the Industrial Tribunal stating that he reserved right to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 27.4.2005 the Industrial Tribunal returned the Reference as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

(3.) The petitioner filed OA No.1177/2005, inter-alia urging that he was appointed as a Vehicle Mechanic at the Auto Care Centre of Taurus Canteen and the closure of the Scooter Repairing Section could not be a ground to terminate his services. Additionally, he pleaded that though appointed as a Vehicle Mechanic he was assigned duties to drive a three-wheeler scooter i.e. he was not working in the Scooter Repair Centre. Secondly, he pleaded that certain other employees like Sh.Shiv Pal Singh and John D?Silva were given alternative jobs. Lastly, he urged that his services have not been terminated as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, but in what manner was not highlighted.