SANJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. The circumstances under which this petition has arisen be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as sub-engineer on November 15, 1995. The resolution by which he was so appointed has been placed on the record as Annexure P/2. The requisite averments have been made in para 5. 3 of the petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that on August 5, 1996, vide order Annexure P/3, his services were brought to an end. It is this order which is being challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE basic argument which has been raised is that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of service, and therefore, he became entitled to the retrenchment compensation. The argument raised is that as the retrenchment compensation has not been paid, the order of termination would be bad, and the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement.

(3.) THE proposition that if there is non-compliance of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act), then the employee is entitled to reinstatement with back wages cannot be disputed. There are series of decisions in this regard. These may be serialised.