NAVEEN CHANDNA Vs. INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to have been first appointed as a Junior Officer (Marketing) with the respondent no.1 Indian Immunologicals Ltd stated to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent no.2 National Dairy Development Board on the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment dated 11th November, 1998; the petitioner further claims that he was appointed as an Executive (Marketing) of the respondent no.1 on the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 12 th May, 2000. The said letter dated 12th May, 2000 stipulates that the employment of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 was for a period of three years only w.e.f. 1 st April, 2000. The petitioner has not filed any letter of appointment of the period thereafter though he claims to have continued in employment of the respondent no.1 and though from the letter dated 1 st April, 2004 of the respondent no.1 filed by the petitioner alongwith the rejoinder it appears that another appointment letter dated 31 st March, 2003 and subsequent service letters were also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has however chosen not to file the same.

(2.) IT is further the case of the petitioner that though he had developed a market for the respondent no.1 but the respondents no. 3 and 4 being officials of the respondent no.1 were inimical towards him and started harassing him and on 1 st November, 2004 compelled him to write a resignation letter. The petitioner claims to have lodged a complaint in this regard with the Police Station Meerut, U.P. on 3 rd November, 2004. The petitioner claims to have attempted to join duties on 26 th November, 2004 when he was not allowed and/or rather informed that his resignation had been accepted vide letter dated 11th November, 2004 of the respondent no.1. Alleging that the letter dated 11th November, 2004 of acceptance of resignation was not sent by the respondent or received by the petitioner, this writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the letter dated 11th November, 2004 and mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to take back the petitioner in employment with back wages and benefits etc.

(3.) THE petitioner applied for restoration; notice of the restoration application was served on the respondents but they failed to appear. The restoration application was accordingly allowed and the petition listed for hearing.