S.U.KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SECOND writ petition is merely an offshoot of the first writ petition. The facts and points involved in the first writ petition are as follows: Respondent No.3, Rakesh Kumar Saxena (R.K. Saxena) was a Labour Welfare Officer Grade-II in Kathauli (District Muzzaffarnagar) Sugar Unit of petitioner company Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Petitioner is covered under Factories Act, 1948 and by virtue of Section 49 of the said Act, a factory which has 500 or more workers, shall employ a labour welfare officer. State Government has framed U.P. Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1955. Sri Saxena was appointed by the petitioner on 01.08.1984. Services of Sri Saxena were initially terminated on 08.10.1986 on the ground that he did not possess requisite qualification. His prayer for exemption from minimum qualification was rejected by Director of Factories against which he filed W.P. No.8245 of 1986 at Lucknow Bench of this Court in which an interim order was passed staying his termination on the basis of which Sri Saxena continued to work. It is stated in Para-16 of the writ petition that by order dated 17.07.1990 passed by petitioner employer, salary of Sri Saxena was fixed in Grade-II (Labour Welfare Officer), however he wanted the salary of Grade-I. It is further stated that salary was fixed in pursuance of G.O. dated 27.02.1990 through which pay scales of Labour Welfare Officers were revised. Sri Saxena filed W.P. No.7400 of 1991 for grant of pay scale of Grade-I in which it appears that no stay order was granted.
(3.) THEREAFTER , in Paragraphs-18 to 21 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that Sri Saxena started behaving in unreasonable manner, absenting from duty without leave, quarrelling and abusing the other officers, instigating the workers and levelling all sorts of false charges. Thereafter, it is mentioned that Sri Saxena filed civil suit alleging therein that electricity and water supply of his official residence had been disconnected by the Management and Management was denying the facilities of school bus to his children. Civil Court granted temporary injunction, which was subjected to appeal and thereafter, a writ petition in this Court was filed in which High Court directed the management to allow the children of respondent No.3 to use the factory bus. In Paragraph-23, it is stated that facility of bus was discontinued on the ground that Sri Saxena was writing letters and publishing statements in the newspapers alleging that his and his family members' life was in danger and in case of any accident blame of deliberate action would have been fastened on the petitioner.;