MAMTA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging her termination from service w.e.f. 11.4.99 on the ground that while terminating her services principle of first come last go was not applied.

(2.) The petitioner was engaged as casual labour on daily wage basis w.e.f. 30.8.97 after her name was sponsored by Local Employment Exchange. She worked up to 28.2.98. After a gap of more than 7 months she was re-engaged on 9.10.98 and worked for one month i.e. 8.11.98. She was again re-engaged on 22.1.99 and worked up to 10.4.99. Petitioner made representation for re-engagement in preference to juniors and when no action was taken petitioner filed this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that petitioner has equally efficacious remedy available to her under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Nareshwar Sahai Mathur & Anr. [(1995) 1 SCC 211]. On merits it is stated that since petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the exigency of work as soon as the work was over she was dis-engaged. There is significant break-in-service between one engagement and others and all these engagements are for very short period.

(3.) Another petition being CWP. No. 1404/98 entitled Rajesh Arora Vs. National Museum and another, on almost identical grounds was heard and is disposed of by a separate judgment passed today. In view of the detailed reasons given in the said judgment. I need not deal with the respective contentions made in this writ petition. Reasons given in the said case would govern this case also. Of course, there is force in the submission of the respondents that the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy available to her under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. However, in view of my direction contained hereinafter, which are same as given in CWP. No. 1404/98, I need not direct the petitioner to approach Industrial Tribunal.