ADALAT HUSSAIN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner he was appointed as Electrician in the Sub-Division-II of Irrigation Department at Deoria on daily wages. He worked regularly even on holidays. His wages were enhanced in the month of April, 1986 to Oct., 1986. To his utter surprise he was paid at sum of Rs. 437/- in the months of Nov. and Dec., 1986 which is the wage of a Beldar in the Irrigation Department. It has been stated that on 12.2.1987 the petitioner was paid only for ten days in the month of Jan., 1987 and was informed that he was not treated on duty after 10.1.1987. Since 13.2.1987 the petitioner has not been provided any work and his services were terminated without any notice of termination. The petitioner claims that he has worked for more than 240 days within a calendar year and is entitled to the benefits of Sec. 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Annexure attached to the writ petition is the chart of the days on which the petitioner had worked. According to the petitioner the termination of the petitioner's services tantamount to illegal retrenchment. It has also been emphasised that there are 35 tube-wells in the Division in which the petitioner was employed on daily wages when two posts of Electricians have been sanctioned by the Department, one for permanent electrician and the other for work-charge electrician. According to the petitioner an Electrician appointed on regular basis gets monthly payment of Rs. 900.00 whereas the petitioner was paid much less and that the petitioner has not been paid for the work done between 11.1.1987 and 12.2.1987. On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; -

(2.) The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Department through counter-affidavit filed in the case. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been staled that the petitioner was not appointed on the post of electrician but he was appointed for the work of electrician on daily wages according to the necessity of work. It has been emphasized that the petitioner was not paid monthly but he was paid for the days he worked. To demonstrate the aforesaid fact, Annexure C.A.I has been attached with the counter affidavit. It has been stated on behalf of the Department that the petitioner was kept on the post of Beldar during the months of Nov. and Dec., 1986 with his consent and that the petitioner had worked only for ten days in the month of Jan., 1987. The Department has denied that the petitioner had continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year. According to the Department there is no post approved for electrician. Therefore, no question of regularisation of the petitioner on the post arises.

(3.) In rejoinder-affidavit, the allegations made in the counter-affidavit have been denied and the allegations made in the writ petition have been reiterated, and Additional facts have been mentioned in the rejoinder-affidavit to demonstrate the false pleas taken by the Department in the counter-affidavit.