VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the oral order of termination of the petitioner passed on 15.4.2001 by respondent No. 4, Project Manager, Project and Tube -well Corporation Unit, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi -cum -Clerk and also to pay salary for the post of Junior Clerk since 1998.
(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this case arc that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis from time to time for periods of six months each beginning from 1.12.1998. The last contractual engagement of the petitioner made by the respondent -Corporation ended in December, 2000. In this manner the petitioner was engaged, with the respondent -Corporation for about two years and on that basis, the petitioner is now claiming for regularization of his service. From the averments made in the writ petition it is not clear whether the appointment was on any substantive vacancy or not. Sri K.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner having worked for nearly three years, has a right to be regularized in service. He has further submitted that the employees junior to the petitioner are still working in the same department. However, the same is not substantiated by the specific averments in the writ petition as to which of the employees junior to the petitioner are still continuing to work. An attempt has been made in the rejoinder -affidavit to show that certain persons, who had been recruited after the petitioner, had been allowed to continue to work. In the said paragraphs of the rejoinder -affidavit, which have not even been properly sworn and arc said to be based on legal advice, names of the certain persons working as Class IV employee, Stenographer and Junior Engineer have been given who are said to be still working. It has not been stated even there that any person who was junior to the petitioner and working as Store Munshi -cum -Clerk is still continuing to work. It has also not been stated that whether any fresh hand has been recruited on the post on which the petitioner claims to have worked.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the service of the petitioner could not have been terminated except in accordance with Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his contention Sri K.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors., (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 293; Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 182, as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division -I, Saharanpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and Anr., (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2404. I have perused the said judgments. The same relate to regularization of daily wage employees, in which such employees had first approached the Industrial Adjudicator before filing the writ petition in the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing a writ petition without availing the alternative remedy.;