NARENDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aforesaid three writ petitions counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between petitioners and contesting respondent No. 2. The State though accepted notice long back but as usual no counter affidavit has been filed in any of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petitions may be decided finally at this stage. In all the writ petitions common questions of law and fact are involved and they may be conveniently decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners are employees of Modipon Fibres Company, Modinagar, which is a division of M/s. Modipon Limited, Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. They were employed as clerks in the establishment. By the impugned orders dated May 13, 1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 13116 of 1993 and 18118 of 1993 and May 12, 1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18117 of 1993, their services have been terminated under Clause 19(a) (bb) of the Certified Standing Orders which are in force in the establishment w.e.f. June 4, 1970. It is also stated that they were amended on December 19, 1988. The orders also speak about payment of the compensation under Section 6-N or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and in lieu of the notice under Clause 19(a) of the Certified Standing Orders. Petitioners have challenged the Certified Standing Order, 1990 as unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, as orders have been passed by way of punishment without serving any charge-sheet, without holding enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing. Clause 19(bbb) of Certified Standing Orders 1990 has also been challenged as arbitrary and unreasonable. Petitioners have stated that they were serving in the establishment as permanent employees since 1973 and they cannot be deprived of their jobs in this manner. It has also been stated that the petitioners have no equally efficacious and alternative remedy before the Labour Court as they cannot challenge the validity of the Certified Standing Orders before the Labour Court.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners has been resisted by respondent No. 2 by filing counter affidavits and it has been stated that the respondent's establishment is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is an establishment in the private sector and public limited company and in view of this, the decision of the Supreme Court appended to the writ petitions will not be applicable to this case. It has been further said that the petitioners were workers in Stores and Transport Department. It was noticed on February 3, 1993 by the employer that one truck load of D.M.T. which is raw-material for polyester yam, has been suspected of having been taken away by the petitioners and their associates and has been sold in the market causing serious loss to the establishment and the answering respondent has lost confidence in petitioners and they are legally entitled to terminate their services, under Clause 19 of the Certified Standing Orders. Petitioners have been paid compensation. The orders passed are perfectly justified and do not suffer from any error of law.