D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis initially for a period of four months by an order dated 16-10-1995 which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition for the purpose of performing certain duties related to election. Thereafter they were permitted to work tilt 28-2-1997 after which the petitioners are not permitted to work.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava contends that the petitioners service were terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act without giving any notice or pay in lie of the notice, therefore, the said order of termination can net be sustained. The petitioners having been appointed for 4 months had been allowed to work therefore by reason thereof they have acquired the right to continue in the post, He further relies on the letter dated 30-7-1997, Annexure-18 to the writ petition, issued by the District Magistrate who had recommended for continuance of the petitioners work, contends that the petitioners should have been allowed to work since still there is necessity for carrying of the work in the department.
(3.) Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel holding brief for Shri Aditya Narain, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 sumbits that the said letter dated 30-7-1997 contained in Annexure-18 to the writ petition has been issued in contravention to the direction of respondent No. 2 on 4-3-1997, therefore by reason thereof the letter of the District Magistrate is wholly beyond the competence. A Copy of the letter dated 4-3-1997 issued by respondent No. 2 has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent before this Court. He further submitted that the petitioners' appointment having been for a particular purpose and for a limited period and the petitioner having been extended by an order dated, 5-2-1996 till 28-2-1997 which fact was known to them, their services had come to an and automatically after the said period, therefore, there is no requirement of compllince of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act He also points out from the letter dated 27-1-1997, Annexure 5 to the writ petition where the situation was clarified to the extent that the period which was extended till 28-2-1997 can no more be extended and no financial sanction is available and the work has to be completed by the said period and that no daily wage workers should be allowed to continue beyond the said period. Therefore, according to him, the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference.;