Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging order dated 31.1.1992, Annexure P16, and order dated 19.3.1993, Annexure P44.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer with the Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') vide appointment letter dated 29.4.1982. Services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 22.5.1985. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager (ELTOP) vide order dated 19/20.12.1989. Petitioner was, unanimously, selected as President of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association. In the capacity of the President of the Association, petitioner highlighted the mismanagement and irregularities of the then Managing Director of the Corporation. Due to this reason, the Managing Director and other officers tried to get rid of the petitioner. In the year 1991, Government took the decision to transfer the work of ELTOP to Notified Area Committee, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as 'Committee'). The Managing Director with a view to get rid of the petitioner ordered his transfer vide order dated 31.10.1991 to the Committee without the consent of the Committee as well as the petitioner. The Committee also opposed the transfer order, in respect of the petitioner, vide order dated 4.11.1991, Annexure P9. Petitioner was on leave with prior permission to leave the station from 4.11.1991 to 7.11.1991. When the petitioner came back to Chandigarh to join his duty, he came to know that he had been transferred to the Committee. Respondent -Corporation did not allow the petitioner to join his duty. In this regard, petitioner filed CWP No. 16939 of 1991 challenging the order dated 31.10.1991, Annexure P7. Petitioner moved a representation dated 29.1.1992, Annexure P14, on coming to know that he might be illegally retrenched. However, the respondents cancelled the transfer order of the petitioner to the Committee and ordered the retrenchment of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.1.1992, Annexure P16. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners (including the present petitioner) to pursue their remedy before the Civil Court or Labour Court, if so advised, vide order dated 5.2.1992, Annexure P17. Petitioner filed various representation to the Corporation for his reinstatement. However, the Board of Director rejected the claim of the petitioner on 19.3.1993 Annexure P44. Hence, the present petition. Petitioner has appeared in person and has submitted that he had been unjustly treated by the respondent -Corporation. He has further submitted that he had worked with the Corporation with utmost dedication. It is only because he wanted to point out the irregularities committed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, being President of the Association of the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category, the Managing Director as well as the other officers tried to get rid of him. There was no occasion to transfer him to the Committee without obtaining prior permission of the Committee. Due to this reason, he challenged his transfer by the respondent -Corporation to the Committee by way of a writ petition in this Court. However, to harm him, the transfer order was withdrawn and he was illegally retrenched. He was not a workman within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Impugned order dated 31.1.1992 Annexure P16, had not been passed by the Managing Director and was illegal. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.1.1992 and 19.3.1993, Annexures P16 and P44, respectively, were liable to be set aside. 3. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Swaran Kaur vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, 1995(1) Recent Services Judgments 269 wherein it was held that the theory of hire and fire at the behest of the employer was liable to be deprecated.
(3.) PETITIONER has next place reliance on Chandar Kiran Maini vs. The Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, 1993(2) SCT 111 wherein it was held that where the abolition of post was to ease out the employee, then the same was liable to be set aside.;