R MADHAVAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU MEDICINAL PLANT FARMS AND HERBAL MEDICINE CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) In this writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing the order of termination issued by the respondent. Though several contentions have been raised, it is unnecessary to deal with all those contentions as in my opinion the contention relating to vulnerability of the impugned order on the ground that no show cause notice has been served on the petitioner is to be accepted. It is not disputed that the petitioner after working on N.M.R. basis for a few years had been regularly appointed and had continued in employment for considerable period under the Corporation. Suddenly, at that stage, without any notice to show cause, the services of the petitioner was terminated.

(3.) .The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that such termination took place as the initial appointment was irregular inasmuch as the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by the employment exchange and according to the respondent this was in violation of the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.790 Labour dated 5.7.71. In my opinion, this ground for termination of service cannot be allowed to stand. Even though the respondent was aware that the petitioner's name had not been sponsored, the petitioner had been regularly appointed. If such an objection would have been raised at the stage of initial appointment as a casual labourer or at the time of regular appointment, it is quite possible that the petitioner would have taken steps to get himself registered in the employment exchange. Even assuming that there was some irregularity in the initial appointment and the petitioner was appointed to the post erroneously, he was allowed to continue on the said post for a long time and he could not have been removed from the service in the garb of rectification of the mistake as the doctrine of acquiescence is applicable to such cases. This position is clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1977 SC 112 (NAYAGAR CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK V. NARAYAN) and a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in 1997 LLJ III (Suppl) 4 (PUSHPA LATA SAXENA V. CHANCELLOR, AGRA UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW 7 OTHERS). Moreover, the stand taken by the respondent in support of the termination, therefore, cannot be accepted. Moreover, in the absence of any notice such unilateral order of termination of the employee was illegal. In such view of the matter, the order of termination is quashed and it must be taken that the petitioner is continuous in service and there is no break in service.