ISHWARBHAI BABAHAI GOHIL Vs. DIRECTOR MEDICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a visually handicapped person, belonging to Scheduled Caste, apprehended termination of his services by the respondents and filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the proposed termination order. It is pertinent to note that when this writ petition was filed by the petitioner there was only proposal for termination of his services. Subsequently this writ petition has been amended and prayer clause (B) in para 7 of the petition has been modified to the effect that the respondents be directed by interim order not to terminate the services of the petitioner and not to restrain him from performing his duties as Class IV servant in the Civil Hospital at Nadiad. On 19th July, 1984 this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7(B) which has been continued as per order dated 6-9-1984 and it continued till this date.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as ward servant on 30th September, 1983 and he was directed to join duty from 3rd October, 1983. Thereafter he was informed by a telegram that his appointment is kept in abeyance. Under letter dated 11-11-1983 the petitioner was directed to join service immediately and accordingly he joined service on 14-11-1983. Having apprehension of termination of his services this petition has been filed by him on 19th July, 1984.

(3.) This writ petition is wholly misconceived. There was no cause of action accrued to the petitioner as his services were not terminated. Only on apprehension this court normally should not entertain petition. The reason is obvious. Against the order of termination the petitioner may have a remedy of appeal or some other appropriate remedy. The petitioner is a workman and he would have also the remedy of raising dispute before the industrial tribunal. At this stage when the termination order is not passed it is too difficult to accept that the services of the petitioner would be terminated without following the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reading of the petition gives out that the petitioner has challenged the proposed termination on the ground that it would be made in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is nothing but only putting the cart before the horse. The writ petition appears to be filed by the petitioner with the object of circumventing the other remedies available to him. Be that as it may.