MOHD NASEEM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the oral order of termination of the petitioner passed on 15.4.2001 by respondent No. 4, Project Manager, Project and Tube -well Corporation Unit, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi -cum -Clerk and also to pay salary for the post of Junior Clerk since 1998.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this case arc that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis from time to time for periods of six months each beginning from 1.12.1998. The last contractual engagement of the petitioner made by the respondent -Corporation ended in December, 2000. In this manner the petitioner was engaged, with the respondent -Corporation for about two years and on that basis, the petitioner is now claiming for regularization of his service. From the averments made in the writ petition it is not clear whether the appointment was on any substantive vacancy or not.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the service of the petitioner could not have been terminated except in accordance with Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his contention Sri K.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors., (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 293; Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 182, as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division -I, Saharanpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and Anr., (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2404. I have perused the said judgments. The same relate to regularization of daily wage employees, in which such employees had first approached the Industrial Adjudicator before filing the writ petition in the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing a writ petition without availing the alternative remedy.