CHET RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to set aside the verbal order of termination dated 16.05.1997 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Office Memorandum dated 29.01.1992. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is thus.

(2.) . He was appointed as a Casual worker in the canteen which is run by it with effect from 06.02.1997 through Employment Exchange. Within three months from the date of appointment his services were dispensed with. The second respondent had filed the reply denying the allegations. The second respondent had stated that the petitioner was only a casual worker and he had no right to remain in service as he was neither appointed to any sanctioned post nor has the petitioner acquired any right to hold the casual post when that is not required by the second respondent. The second respondent has also stated that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to raise an industrial dispute if so advised and the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Second respondent has referred to the following cases:

(3.) . The learned counsel for the petitioner in his attempt to get over the preliminary objections raised by the second respondent relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association, Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange Vs. Union of India and Another 1997 (6) SCC 723 = 1998 SCC (L&S) 386 wherein the Supreme Court had observed: