N.K.Mitra, C.J. - (1.) The Special Appeal in hand is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1995 of the learned single Judge in dull civil. Writ Petition No. 18277 of 1987, N. K. Tripathi v. M/s. U. P. State Spinning Mills Company (No. 2) Limited, Unit-1, district Jaunpur through its Manager, Administration and another, whereby the learned single Judge "set aside" the order dated 11.5.1987 impugned in the writ petition whereby the services of the petitioner-respondent were terminated by the appellant-employer with immediate effect as "no longer required", by giving a month's salary in lieu of the notice period.
(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner-respondent Nawal Kishore Tripathi was appointed Assistant Mill Engineer in the Jaunpur Unit of the Mill on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,200 plus allowances mentioned in the appointment order dated 1.9.1986 which contained a stipulation that the services were purely temporary and liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons by giving month's notice from either side. The illegality of the order was challenged before the learned single Judge on grounds, inter alia, that he had been discriminated in the matter of employment in that one Shri B. N. Sachan who came into employment five months after the petitioner-respondent has been retained while the services of the petitioner-respondent came to be terminated in "arbitrary and capricious exercise of power"; that the order of termination was hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; and that it was otherwise bad in law. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants herein on the ground that the petitioner-respondent was found "unsuitable" and his services were, therefore, terminated on the ground of unsuitabillty in terms of the service conditions. Learned single Judge held that since one of the grounds of termination as stated in the counter-affidavit was the "charge" that the petitioner used to remain absent without obtaining leave and, therefore, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated without notice and enquiry in tune with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) We have had heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the fact of the case. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the services of the petitioner-respondent who was a temporary hand were terminated by an order of termination simpllclter casting no stigma; that the order of termination was passed on the ground of "unsuitability" and since no stigma was cast, the learned single Judge was not Justified in interfering with the order of termination.;