G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent for setting aside order dated 4.6.1993 vide which the learned Single Judge dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 filed by the appellant for quashing the order terminating of his service.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that after having worked as a Technician under the Principal Investigator on the Atomic Energy Research Project from 2.8.1983 to 31.3.1985, the appellant joined service of the Punjab University, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, the University) as a Clerk in the office of Registrar w.e.f. 13.8.1987. he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8294 of 1988 alongwith four others for directing the University to regularise his service. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench on 15; 12.1988 with the observation that disputed questions of fact are involved in the case. Soon thereafter, the Registrar of the University issued order dated 20.12.1988 terminating the appellant's service by giving him notice pay in terms of Section 25 -F (a) and compensation in terms of Section 25 -F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - (for short, the 1947 Act;). The appellant challenged the termination of his service by contending that the action of the University was violative of his fundamental right to equality. He averred that a number of persons junior to him had been retained in service and in this manner he had been subjected to discrimination. He also invoked the rule of last come first go embodied in Section 25 -G of the 1947 Act. In its reply, the respondent -University raised several preliminary objections including the one that an effective alternative remedy was available to the writ petitioner (appellant herein). On merits, it was averred that those who had been retained in the service were not junior to the appellant, The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition on 10.5.1993 with the following observations: - "The petitioner was appointed on 26.5.1988 and vide the present petition he has sought for his regularisation by mainly contending that after having worked for more than 240 days he deserves to be regularised in view of the judgment rendered in Piara Singh's case, 1988 (4) SLR 739. The aforesaid judgment was the subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court which has been allowed. A Division Bench of this Court after the decision rendered in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (5) SPJ 1 held that no order of regularisation can be passed simply if a person has completed more than 240 days of service. This was so said after noticing the findings recorded in Piara Singh's case, 1992(5) SPJ 1. Finding no force in this petition I dismiss the same."
(3.) THE appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No. 4470 of 1993 for recalling order dated 10.5.1993 and for disposal of the writ petition on merits by stating that the writ petition had been erroneously dismissed in the absence of his counsel. The learned Single Judge allowed the Civil Misc. application and recalled order dated 10.5.1993, but again dismissed the writ petition, this time on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Labour Court. The relevant extract of the second order dated 4.6.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced below :- "In view of the fact that the petitioner was not represented for the reason explained in paragraph 4 of the application, I recall my order dated 10.5.1993 The only argument raised in the case is that the persons junior to the petitioner were retained whereas the services of the petitioner have been terminated. If that be so, it will be open to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the Labour Court. Dismissed.";