- (1.) The petitioner was originally appointed as a Welfare Officer in the Kanpur Chemical Works Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) by an order dated 1-7-1965. Later it was discovered that the said appointment was irregular as he had not completed the age of 21 years on the date of appointment, Hence, the appointment was regularised by a second order of appointment passed on 20-11-1965 which was to take effect from 4-10-1965. Thus, in supersession of the earlier order the petitioner stood appointed with effect from 4-10-1965. It is alleged that he incurred the displeasure of the management and hence they were anxious to remove him from service on some pretext or the other. This resulted ultimately in the impugned order dated 31-5-1972 (Annexure-V of the writ petition) whereby the management terminated his services. It directed that he would not work from 1-6-1972. The relevant portion of the order runs as follows: "We regret to inform you that your services would no longer be required and they are hereby terminated with effect from the close of working hours today, i.e., 31st May, 1972. You will not be working on and from tomorrow i.e., 1st June, 1972. You will be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice in addition to other dues whatever they may be, besides gratuity payable to you under Rule 8-A of the U. P. Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1965." It is not disputed that the respondent had not obtained the concurrence of the Labour Commissioner for passing the order terminating the petitioner's services.
(2.) The aforesaid order has been challenged on a number of grounds. It was contended that the petitioner enjoyed a statutory status and consequently his services could not be terminated at the pleasure of the respondent; they would be dispensed with only in accordance with the statute governing the appointment and conditions of his service; that there was no power in the respondent to terminate the services unless it was intended to do so by way of punishment or penalty, in which case the concurrence of the Labour Commissioner was an essential condition and hence the order of termination was void and illegal.
(3.) The main reliefs claimed by the petitioner are: "1. To issue a writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 31st May, 1972; and 2. to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent not to give effect to the order dated 31st May, 1972 and not to interfere with the petitioner discharging his duties as a Welfare Officer.";