UPENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) We have carefully perused the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated June 10, 2003 and find no infirmity in the same. The 5 learned single Judge has discussed the matter in detail and we fully agree with the reasoning given by him. If a department, a factory or an establishment is closed down, there is no legal principle that the employee has a right to get alternative employment. No doubt, the loss of a job of an employee causes great hardship to his family, but a writ cannot be issued on the basis of hardship. Some error of law or illegality has to be demonstrated before a writ can be issued.

(3.) It may be mentioned that in a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show that there is equity in his favour, but he has also to show that there is law in his favour. Unless both are in his favour, a writ will not be issued. The appellant cannot claim a writ merely because equity is in his favour. This is a well settled principle of exercise of writ jurisdiction. So far as the appellant is concerned, he has not been able to show any legal principle that a person who is retrenched from an establishment, factory, department has a right to get alternative employment.