SURESH KUMAR VASISTH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners were working in Modi Rubber Limited (Respondent No.8). The services of the petitioners dispensed with in accordance with the terms of employment. The petitioners have challenged the order stating that the 8th Respondent Company without any notice and without any departmental enquiry had terminated the services of the petitioners. Exactly in the similar circumstances the point was considered by me in CW No.379 of 1998 on 09.02.1998 (V. Mahendru Versus Union of India and ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Hansaria submits that a few crucial aspects dealt with by this court in Kuldip Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993(2) Delhi Lawyer 196 had not been considered in that case and having regard to the circumstances of this case and the management of the 8th Respondent Company by the government the entire position had changed and if they are considered the court may take a different view.

(2.) The learned counsel relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court reported in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and others Versus Union of India and others (1982) 3 SCC 235 at page 254 submits that the petitioners right to livelihood is an important component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and when the fundamental rights guranteed under Article 21 is violated this court can interfere vide Article 226, whatever the nature of the constitution of the Company (Modi rubber Co. Ltd.)

(3.) The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 at 267 and also Air India Statutory Corporation etc. Vs. United Labour Union and others AIR 1997 SC 645, for the proposition that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 is very wide and subject to parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.