HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) Respondent no.4 vide the letter dated 28.1.1995, was appointed on casual basis on a lump sum emoluments of Rs2570/- w.e.f. 1.2.1995. In terms of the letter of appointment, the appointment was initially for a period of one year subject to review of his performance periodically and consideration for appointment on regular scale subject to his performance. By a letter dated 12.4.1999, the petitioner informed respondent no.4 that his services were no more required with immediate effect. Along with the letter a pay order of Rs.11,273/- was enclosed allegedly in settlement of all the dues of respondent no.4 which included one month's notice pay, retrenchment compensation and salary upto the last working day. Respondent no.4 filed a petition in this Court challenging his termination and praying for quashing of the order and for regularisation of his services. By order dated 19.1.2000, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise industrial dispute. Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent no.4 made a representation to the Conciliation Officer and on receipt of the failure report, the dispute was referred by the Central Govt. for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court with the following terms of reference :-

(3.) Whether the action of the management of Addl. Executive Director (Mktg.) Hindustan Zinc Ltd., flat no.205-206. Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Place, New Delhi in stopping from services all of a sudden w.e.f 12.4.1999, Sh.Budhi Singh Bisht, daily wages worker working continuously w.e.f 10.2.1994 instead of making him regular in service, is justified, legal, valid and reasonable? If not, what benefits and relief he is entitled?