HAZARI LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. TULSIPUR SUGAR CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This (petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been presented by Sri Hazari Lal Srivastava, who was appointed as a Welfare Officer by opposite party No. 1, Messrs. Tulsipur Sugar Co., Ltd. on the 14th July, 1952 praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19th August, 1961 by which his services were terminated by opposite party No. 1, the order dated 26th September, 1961 by which the Labour Commissioner, opposite party No. 2, dismissed the appeal filed by him against the first order, and the order dated 17th May, 1962 passed by the State Government rejecting the representation, made by the petitioner against those two earlier orders.

(2.) Under the provisions of Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948, the. Government of U. P. promulgated rules relating to appointment of Welfare Officers by factories ordinarily employing 500 or more workers per day. These rules were known as U. P. Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1949 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1949). It was during the time that these rules were enforced that the petitioner was appointed as a Welfare Officer by apposite party no. 1. In these rules, there were only two provisions under which the services of a Welfare Officer could be terminated. One was Rule 13 laying down that no Welfare Officer shall be discharged except with the previous approval of the Labour Commissioner, obtained on submission of a report as to his work to him, and unless one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice is given to such officer. The other rule, viz. Rule 14 pro- vided for various punishments including the punishment of dismissal under circumstances justifying that punishment. Subsequently, the State Government promulgated the U. P. Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955) by a notification dated. 20th April, 1955. These rules were published and brought into effect in supersession of the Rules of 1949. In these rules no provision was contained of the nature which was contained in Rule 13 of Rules of 1949. There was a provision for punishment and dismissal or termination at services in any other manner as one of the punishments which could be awarded. Finally, there was Rule 21 laying down : "The age of superannuation of Welfare Officer shall be 55 years. Extension of service in deserving cases may, however, be granted with the approval of the Labour Commissioner, for a period of one year at a time, but not for a period beyond the age of 60 years."

(3.) It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 30-5-1960, so that, if the Rules of 1955 were applicable to him, he was to retire with effect from that date. The petitioner's case is that, near about that date, he was given a threat by opposite party No. 1 that his services would be terminated unless he applied for extension of service and under that threat he submitted an application for three years' extension. That application was recommended to the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner granted one year's extension. That extension expired on 30-5-1961. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner made no application for further extension nor did opposite party No. 1 recommend further extension of service of the petitioner to the Labour Commissioner. On 19-8-1961 the opposite party No. 1 served the first impugned order on the petitioner informing him that, since any further extension to him had been declined by the Government, he was being retired with effect from that date. The petitioner filed an appeal on 31-8-1961 before the Labour Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed on 26-9-1961. On 24-10-1961 he filed an appeal to the State Government. The final order on that appeal was communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 17-5-1962 which according to the petitioner was received by him on 22-5-1962. Thereupon the petitioner moved this petition.