GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the legality of the order of termination of his services, dated August 19, 1989, essentially on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE facts which lie within a short compass are that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages of Rs. 14/ - per day in the service of the respondent Rajasthan State Handloom Corporation with effect from 12/1/1988 for a period of three months which was extended from time to time. Ultimately, when the petitioner completed approximately 20 months of service which according to him, was without any interruption, was handed over an envelope on August 18, 1989 regarding which the petitioner enquired and it was informed to him that the letter has been delivered to him in pursuance of the instructions of the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner opened the envelope and found a letter along with a cheque of Rs. 1022/ - giving an account of the said amount towards which the said payment was made. In the said letter, it was stated that the petitioner had been appointed on daily wages on purely temporary basis for a period of three months and thereafter extensions were granted upto 31/12/1988. It was further informed that the services of the petitioner were no longer required in the Corporation and, hence, no extension could be granted beyond 19/8/1989, from which date the petitioner was treated as ceased to be in the employment of the Corporation. It was further stated therein that all pay and allowances had already been paid to the petitioner upto 31/7/1989 and Cheque No. 106596 dated 19/8/1989 for Rs. 1022/ - (Rupees one thousand and twenty two only) was enclosed towards the wages for the period from 1/8/1989 to 18/8/1989 for 13 working days amounting to Rs. 182/ -. It was further stated that one month's pay in lieu of notice under Section 25F of the Act amounting to Rs. 420/ - was also included in the said amount of Rs. 1022/ - Besides, the due payment of retrenchment compensation for a total period of 7 months 3 days, from 12/1/1988 to 18/8/1989 at Rs. 14/ - per day under Section 25F of the Act, which amonted to Rs. 420/ - was also included. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of termination challenged the same in this Court initially on the ground that a number of employees who are much Junior to the petitioner have been retained in the service whereas the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. It was, therefore, challenged that the principle of last come first go, which is the law unto itself, has been violated in the case of the petitioner. In the rejoinder, however, an additional plea has been raised on behalf of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was handed over a crossed account payee Cheque of Rs. 1022/ -, but the said cheque was incomplete because it was an undated cheque. The petitioner, therefore, when submitted this cheque to his banker for deposit, the same was refused for payment. Thus, a ground has been taken that the same does not amount to compliance of Section 25F of the Act and on this score too, the order of termination is fit to be quashed.
(3.) THE respondent Corporation has also filed a reply to the aforesaid facts'by filling a counter -affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner's services were purely temporary and he has acquired no lien or right on the post, as stated. It has further been stated that the petitioner was discharged from service on account of his poor performance and unsuitability to the job. The periodical reports regarding petitioner's performance disclose that he had not been discharging his duty diligently and was a habitual absentee without any information. A chart showing his absence has been enclosed to the counter affidavit as Annx. R/3, It has been stated in the reply that in spite of opportunity having been granted to the petitioner to improve his performance he failed to do as a result of which his services were discontinued.;