SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner allege to have been engaged on daily wages on 1st May, 2000, in the office of Nldeshak, Rajya Sangrahalaya. Lucknow. According to the averments made in the writ petition, he has been paid daily wages for the period he has worked but has been discharged from such engagement with effect from 19th July, 2001.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed 240 days, therefore, the petitioner attained the status of temporary Government servant and he cannot be dispensed with from service without following the provisions of Section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The petitioner has not taken any plea In the writ petition nor has even stated that the office in which the petitioner is engaged, is an 'Industry' and the petitioner is a 'workman' nor the plea that the termination of services of the petitioner has been made without complying the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, because of which the termination of the service of the petitioner is bad in law. In the absence of aforesaid plea that the petitioner is entitled for protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the said argument can neither be entertained nor could be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is, therefore, rejected.