V. R. Kingaonkar, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition bearing Original Application No. 1050 of 1993 and Review Petition No. 69 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "Tribunal") the Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as a casual labourer in the Central Railway, Manmad, w.e.f. 23rd December, 1987. He was subjected to medical examination and was being given monthly pay w.e.f. 1988. He was granted not absorbed as a regular employee. His services were terminated by an order dated 17th May, 1993 on the ground that there was no further sanction to the project. He assailed the order of termination before the Tribunal. His application came to be rejected and the Tribunal held that the Petitioner was only a monthly rated casual labourer without granting of temporary status. The Tribunal held that the Petitioner is not entitled to get any legal protection in as much his services were temporarily hired and he was only a casual labour.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that the services of the Petitioner could not be terminated without holding any inquiry. The learned Counsel pointed out from copy of reply filed by the Respondents in Original Application No.1050 of 1993 that the service card produced by the Petitioner was branded as false. If that was so, it is argued, then holding of regular enquiry was necessary prior to the termination of his services. It is argued that the case of the Petitioner is not properly considered by the Tribunal and it has been wrongly held that his case is similar to another Applicant by name Allwyn John Shikari. Learned Counsel urged, therefore, to allow the Petition and order reinstatement of the Petitioner by regularising his services from 18th May, 1990. On the other hand learned Counsel, Shri Suresh Kumar, appearing for the Respondents, supports the impugned orders.;