HARDWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.R.Singh

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Road-Roller Second (Spare) Driver in Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Shahjahanpur and his name was enlisted in the Muster roll in due course of time. It transpires from the facts on record that by communication No. 2046 dated 16-6-1982, the Executive Engineer Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department Shahjahanpur, (respondent no. 4) recommended the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer III, P. W. D. Bareilly (respondent no. 3) for treating him as work- charge employee. This letter was followed by another letter from respondent no. 4 dated 5-3-1984 to the respondent no. 3, but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of work-charge employees. The averments made ill the petition are to the effect that the petitioner was not accepted as work-charge employee whilst the employees junior to him were so enlisted. The names of such juniors to the petitioner are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The petitioner claims himself to be in continuous service ever since his appointment in Jan. 1981 and abruptly, on 16-7-1985, the respondent no. 5 orally directed the petitioner to (.make over the Roller in the charge of the petitioner, to one Sri Mahfooz Ali Khan, a Mixer operator who was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner remonstrated and put forth his grievances before the respondent no. 4 but he could elicit no response as to redressal of his grievances. It is asserted that he was neither served with any charge-sheet nor his services were terminated in accordance with law and yet the respondents disallowed him to work after 15-7-1985 and he has not been paid his salary/wages since May 1985. The petitioner, it is so alleged, had all along been approaching the authorities for redressal of bis grievances but he had so far drawn a blank. The present petition has been fired for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination and commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and further extend him all the consequential benefits.

(3.) IN Land Development Case (supra), IN one of the Civil appeals, it beINg Civil Appeal No. 1898 of 1982 with which the Hon. Supreme Court was concerned IN the said case, the employee stopped attendINg duties from 9-8-1975 and he left his service on his own accord The labour court by its award dated 16-9-80 held that the termINation amounted to retrenchment and was illegal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and accordINgly, the employee was held entitled to reINstatement with full back wages. The award of the labour court was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court and fINally before the Supreme Court. Hon. Supreme Court considered the question IN extenso and while discussINg the scope and hmbit of retrenchment as defINed IN Section 2 (00) of the Central Act, Observed as under :