DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri U.K.Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Co-operative Labour Federation (in short hereinafter referred as 'Federation') and approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of termination from service. In brief, initially on 2.1.1989 petitioner was appointed by the Federation on the post of Apprentice Assistant Engineer in stop gap arrangement for 89 days on consolidated sal­ary. Appointment was extended after lapse of 89 days from time to time by passing an or­der on 5.4.1989, 5.7.1989 and 5.10.1989. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.9.1989 he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis in stop gap arrangement in the regu­lar pay scale with the rider that services may be terminated at any time. Again on 22.3.1990 he was appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days. The term of appointment was expired on 13.6.1990.
(3.) IT appears that petitioner had filed writ petition No. 7491 of 1990 with the prayer for quashing of the oral termination order dated 1.7.1990. Writ petition No. 7491 of 1990 was allowed on 13.11.1991 with direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to con­tinue in service. In the said writ petition counter affidavit has been filed. While allow­ing the writ petition this court had observed that the services could not have been termi­nated without due compliance of provision contained in Section 6 (N) of the U.P. Indus­trial Disputes Act. The petitioner should have been given notice as well as compensation in lieu of retrenchment. After receipt of judg­ment passed by this Court, the Managing Director of the Federation had allowed the salary of three months to the petitioner by order dated 17.12.1991 and thereafter again services were terminated on 24.12.1991 with one month salary. The order of termination dated 24.12.1991 again impugned by the pe­titioner in Writ Petition No. 75 (SB) of 1992 pointing out that the services were terminated without following the retrenchment procedure given under the Industrial Disputes Act. In pursuance to interim order passed earlier, High Court had also passed the interim order thereafter by judgment and order dated 18.9.1992 the writ petition No. 75(SB) of 1992 was decided finally and order of termi­nation dated 24.12.1991 was set aside with liberty to respondents pass a fresh order. In consequence thereof petitioner was allowed to discharge duty. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 7988 of 1992 with the prayer that he may be given revised pay scale and also be regularised in the services. It appears that after filing of writ petition again petitioner's services were terminated on 2.12.1992 with one month salary and com­pensation in accordance to provision con­tained in Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The order of termination dated 2.12.1992 has been challenged in the present writ petition. A Division Bench of this court by interim order dated 22.12.1992 had de­clined to grant any interim order but provided that in case the post of Assistant Engineer is vacant or filled up in due course of time the petitioner may be given preference over and above freshers.;