RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. The petitioner claims that initially he was given apprenticeship training during the period 24. 4. 1997 to 23. 4. 1998 for a period of one year under the apprenticeship Act. He has also been given a certificate of apprenticeship training. It is claimed that after completion of apprenticeship training, the petitioner has been working on the post of fitter but his services have been terminated by the employer with effect from 26. 11. 1999 without any reasons and that prior to it the petitioner-workman has not been given retrenchment compensation etc. Hence action of the employer in terminating his services is illegal being against the provisions of section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It is also claimed that prior to termination of his services, the petitioner had moved an application dated 30. 3. 1999 to the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, hathras for regularisation of his services, on which a favourable recommendation was made and the same was forwarded to the Water Works Engineer for submitting his report about services of the petitioner.

(2.) IN paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is averred that in the report dated 20,4. 1999 submitted by water Works Department, it reported that work of the petitioner is satisfactory and earlier recommendation was made for appointment of the petitioner on a vacant post but still he was not appointed; that Water Works Technical Employees Association, hathras also raised a demand for regularisation of petitioner's services as permanent and thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 43781 of 1999, Ravi Kumar v. Nagar Palika parishad, Hathras and another. Yet in spite of the aforesaid facts, services of the petitioner have been terminated by an oral order without giving any written order or opportunity of hearing on 26. 11. 1999.

(3.) IT is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner informed his earlier Counsel about his termination, who assured him that he will file an amendment application in the writ petition but the same was not filed and the writ petition had been dismissed in default on 8. 9. 2003. Restoration application filed in writ Petition No. 43781 of 1999 aforesaid has also been rejected on 9. 12. 2005.