GULAM MOHAMMED Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed the present writ petition challenging the order Ann. 2 dated 14 -12 -1982 whereby petitioner's services were sought to be dispensed with in terms of standing order 13. Petitioner was serving in the Corporation as a Conductor and his appointment was temporary in nature. Mr. Shreemali appearing for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision given in Bhanwarlal v. RSRTC AIR 1984 Raj. 619. Mr. Munshi appearing for the respondent submits that the standing order 13 has not been struck out as a whole but first part of it has only been struck out. Since the petitioner is not a permanent employee, he cannot get any benefit of striking down the first part of the standing order 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that apart from this, petitioner has not been retrenched in terms of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to Section 25G last come should be sent first but that has not been done. But no such list was prepared. Mr. Munshi has submitted that the petitioner's case is a case of loss of confidence therefore no benefit would be given to him. This submission is also without any substance because a bare reading of Ex. 2, the impugned order would show that petitioner has not been retrenched on account of loss of confidence but his services have been terminated by relying on the standing order 13. This is a public order and that cannot be read subject to the reply filed by Mr. Munshi. In Chandulal v. Management PAW Airways Inc. : (1985)IILLJ181SC their Lordships have held that in case of Joss of confidence regular enquiry has to be made because it does not amount to retrenchment. Mr. Munshi has lastly argued that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner by making a reference to the Industrial Court. Alternative remedy is no bar for exercise of discretion of his Court and barely on account of alternative remedy the petition cannot be dismissed. In view of the clear position of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhanwarlal's case (supra) this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

(2.) IN the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14 -12 -1982 Ex. 2 is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. There is no order as to costs.