SURESH CHANDRA RATRE Vs. DIRECTOR, MALARIA RESEARCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order by which the claim made by the petitioner for reinstatement in services has been dismissed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as CGIT for brevity), on the ground that the evidence was not rightly assessed by the Tribunal. The fact that the Scheme in which the petitioner was appointed was still continued, was not taken note of and holding that such a Scheme was closed and the work of Lab Technician was over, therefore petitioner was terminated such a claim of petitioner is wrongly rejected by the CGIT. It is contended that there was requirement of adjudication of the claim of the petitioner independently than of the others who have approached the High Court before raising the dispute and, therefore, the order of termination of the petitioner was liable to be set aside. Instead of directing reinstatement of the petitioner by rightly deciding the reference, since the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal mechanically, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts as have come on record are that the petitioner after issuance of an advertisement, after going through the process of selection was appointed on the post of Lab Technician in the pay scale of Rs.1320-2040. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the post was available in a project/mission which was a temporary project, but likely to continue indefinitely. It was further specifically provided in the advertisement that the appointment would be on adhoc basis and may be regularised subsequently. However, the incumbent will not be entitled to claim the regularisation after the expiry of the period of project nor will be entitled to his absorption in the Medical Research Centre or ICMR. The petitioner was offered the appointment. He successfully discharged the duties. The continuity of the project was directed by the Central Government. Though there was nothing, but only on account of some malafides, action was initiated against the petitioner as he was given certain show cause notice and subsequently saying that the services of the petitioner were no longer required he was terminated. The petitioner agitated the matter before the authorities, but nothing was done by them, ultimately, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing W.P.No.2899/1996. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 16.8.1996. The respondents were directed to consider making reference of the case to the appropriate Government for referring the same for adjudication to the CGIT. The reference was made by the Central Government and as in case of two others, the reference was made, the matter was taken by the CGIT where the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner. The effective reply of the same was not given by the respondents. No evidence to the effect that there was no work available, was produced, yet the Tribunal has decided the reference against the petitioner by passing the order impugned, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. According to the petitioner, since the reference is not answered in appropriate manner, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits.

(3.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner refuting the submission of respondents that the project was completed and closed. There were certain persons who were appointed after the appointment of petitioner and they are continuing in the employment. It is further stated that when the Malaria Research Project at some places was closed, the employees of the concerned project were transferred to other projects, but were not retrenched. The petitioner could have been transferred in the same manner instead of removing him from the post. It is contended that when certain persons working in the similar project in the State of Tamil Nadu were removed, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and in their case after the detailed discussions, the Tribunal has held that the persons like project employees were to be treated as the employees of the ICMR and the benefits were to be extended to them at par. In respect of certain original application, the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench at Delhi has passed the order and accepting the said order, the respondent National Institute of Malaria Research has issued the orders to give them the similar benefit as was extended to the other employees. Accordingly, it is contended that such a stand taken by the respondents is totally misconceived and the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement.