DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 1.1.1987 and he continued to discharge duty up to 31.1.1998. However, on 1.2.1998, the services of the petitioner were orally terminated. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned the names of those three persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar Misra, Jitendra Pratap Singh and Merai Ram, who were subsequently appointed to the petitioner, have been retained in service. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that oral order of termination by which services of the petitioner have been dispensed with is not sustainable under law and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) WHILE filing reply to the contents of writ petition, the respondents have categorically not denied that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wager in the year 1987. The reason assigned in the counter-affidavit is that on account of no work the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with orally. A plea has also been taken that in absence of work the respondents were having right to dispense the services of the petitioner and it was not necessary for them to pass a written order.;