S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) The petitioners feel aggrieved by the communication contained in the letter of the Chief Manager informing them that on the expiry of the period of their services on April 1, 1984 their services were not required and they could collect their wages for the month of March on production of no dues certificates and in case the Corporation intended to fill up the post of Supervisor held by them they will be given preference.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned communication in reality amounts to retrenchment as contemplated under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and since the requisite conditions contemplated un- der Section 6-N of the Act were not satisfied or complied with their services could not be deemed to have been dispensed with. In the circumstances they have sought for the quashing of the impugned orders and for a direction requiring the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and further treat the petitioners as continuing in their employment and entitled to their full wages and other benefits from the date of the wrongful termination of their service. They have further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and permit the petitioners to discharge their duties,
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel representing the respondent employer and have carefully perused the record.;