M.L.Bhat. J. - (1.) The petitioner's services have been terminated by an order dated June 16, 1990 and he has been asked to hand over charge by another order dated June 21, 1990. Both these orders are impugned in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Junior clerk on daily wage basis by the respondent No. 3 vide an appointment letter dated August 1, 1989. The petitioner is said to have joined on August 3, 1989 and since then he had worked upto June 21, 1990. He contends that his work was satisfactory. He was not paid salary from December, 1989 till his services were terminated in June, 1990. He says that he has worked for 240 days. He is said to have made a request to the respondents to regularise his services but instead of regularising his services, his services were terminated. The order of termination is challenged as being bad because no notice was given to him nor were the provisions of Section 25-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act complied with. However, some Junior clerks appointed on daily wage basis have been granted relief by the Court. The petitioner claims payment of salary also from the month of December, 1989 onwards.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with a condition that his services would be liable to termination without any notice. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 15 to the writ petition, shows that his services have been terminated with effect form August 1, 1989 (sic) (June 16, 1990). The order of termination does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The said order does not appear to be punitive also.;