- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Devendra Dhama, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. K. Misra, learned Counsel for the U. P. Co-operative Federation. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6-11-1990 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) with a further prayer to direct the respondents not to interfere with the service of the petitioner as Extension Officer and to continue to pay his salary and other allowances admissible to him.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit has already been filed long back. The rejoinder affidavit even at this belated stage of 14 years is accepted by the Court and is kept on record and with the consent of the parties this writ petition is decided in reference to Second Proviso to Rule 2 to Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. According to the petitioner, U. P. Co-operative Sugar Mills Federation in its different mills intended to make deployment of young, courageous and dedicated youths as Extension Officer for one year, for the first year on Rs. 1500 per months consolidated salary with a condition that upper age limit would be 30 years on 1-7-1989, and keeping in view the work, performance and output the employer might consider to give a regular appointment in the establishment. The petitioner, however, was given appointment on 2nd November, 1989 in Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Roopapur, Hardoi on Rs. 1500 per month on consolidated salary absolutely on temporary basis for one year at first instance as an Extension Officer (Sugar) with indication that the service of the petitioner was absolutely temporarily and could be terminated without any notice, with other conditions as indicated in the order of appointment dated 2- 11-1990 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition ). However, during the employment of one year the petitioner was shifted to different units of Sugar Federation and under a policy decision the service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 6-11-1990 alongwith one other person after one year in consonance to the terms and conditions of employment. According to the petitioner, this order of termination was not conveyed to him at late stage in the year 1991 and by that time he has already rendered 240 days uninterruptedly continuously in his deployment and keeping in view his performance as noted in the order dated 28th August, 1990 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) the petitioner was liable to be regularised in service, however, dispensation of the service of the petitioner being in derogation to the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India as well as to the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, was arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition asserting that the petitioner had rendered service of 240 days during deployment and non- observance of the provisions of the Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act before dispensation of his service has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit in the respective paragraphs, therefore, keeping in view non-observance of Section 6-N and assurances given in the advertisement (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) the petitioner's service was allowed to be continued in the light of the decision in 1989 (58) FLR 100 Krishna Kumar Dubey v. U. P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation and another, where the termination of an employee having rendering 240 days service without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held to be illegal and was quashed and the writ petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service.
(3.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed indicating that the petitioner has not rendered 240 days of service continuously and the appointment of the petitioner was for the fixed term for one year and in terms of the appointment petitioner's service was dispensed with. According to the respondents there is no illegality or arbitrariness or discrimination, and if the petitioner was treating himself to be workmen then for alleged non-compliance of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act he was supposed to resort to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for redressal of his grievance inter alia for adjudication of disputed questions of facts of rendering 240 days of service. According to the respondents, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the Mill is neither State Government under Article 12 of the Constitution nor instrumentality of the State Government, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. According to learned Counsel for the respondents the aspect of rendering work for more than 240 days by the petitioner was only to be relevant when the petitioner approaches labour Court or was persuading before the Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised merely on the ground that he had rendered 240 days of work.;