HITESHKUMAR NAVINBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Yogi Gadhia for respondent no.2.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Safety Engineer with the respondent no.2 with effect from 22/2/2013 on certain terms and conditions. It is further submitted that after a period of 55 days of his service, the petitioner was terminated by the respondent no.2 vide order dtd. 17/4/2013, copy of the said order is placed on record at page no.18. Learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that at the time of terminating the services of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has not followed the provisions contained in the notification dtd. 14/7/2004 issued by the Labour and Employment Department. Learned advocate has referred to the said notification, copy of which is placed on record at page no.19. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, more particularly, referred to page no.21 of the compilation and submitted that as per the said clause, any employer who intends to dismiss or terminate the services of the Safety Officer has to inform to the government and take prior permission of the government. Learned advocate submits that in the present case, respondent no.2 has not followed the said procedure and did not obtain the prior permission of the respondent no.1-government and therefore the action of the respondent no.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner informed the respondent no.2 vide communication dtd. 26/4/2013 about the termination of his services by the respondent no.2. However, respondent no.1, vide communication dated __6/13, informed the petitioner that the action of termination of service by respondent no.2 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition.