Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as peon on daily wages basis in Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Limited, Jhansi (hereinafter called as the Nigam) on 1.10.1980. He was given temporary appointment as peon w.e.f. 16.9.1988. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the aforesaid order of termination by means of this writ petition and has prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularize him in services with all benefits and pay his salary w.e.f. 6.9.1990 on the ground that he was regularly working on the post of peon from 1.10.1980. Most of the Units of the Nigam were, in the mean time, closed, therefore, it was decided as a matter of policy by the State Government that some persons be retrenched to affect the economy. The petitioner being the junior most person in his category was terminated from service on 6.9.1990 by the Managing Director of the Nigam by giving three months' notice along with a cheque for Rs. 3,020.40 representing 3 months' salary which was returned without delivery by the postal department.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit it has been stated that since the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request and assured the authority concerned that he would improve his work then he was appointed afresh on probation. When he did not improve his work, his services were terminated during the probation period. He moved a representation before respondent No. 3 stating he has not been permitted to join his duties and is not being paid salary. He alleges that his services cannot be terminated without rhyme or reason. He has also alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and as such, his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the INdustrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination is illegal. It is further alleged that it was the statutory duty of the respondent to pay his salary. In the mean time, Bundelkhand Vikas Limited was closed down by the Government. An amendment application was moved by the petitioner which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.1996. The petitioner has stated that the State Government has issued a G.O. No. 3829/54-2.92 dated 11.11.1992 closing down Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Limited and submitted that since the name of other employees has been sent by the respondent for absorption in Government or Public Corporation as such, the petitioner is also entitled for absorption.;