- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the application, I.A. No. 424 of 2013, for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A. No. 424 of 2013 is allowed accordingly. L.P.A. No. 4 of 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) FOR the work contract dated 20th April, 2005 ending in the year 2010, appellant's work contract was terminated in the year 2006, against which the petitioner preferred writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2012. The appellant's contention is that petitioner was never allowed to work for the rest period after the impugned order dated 25th July, 2006 in spite of the interim order of this Court. However, it was admitted that term of the agreement has already lapsed. The learned single Judge also considered the contention of the petitioner that Rs. five lakhs of the petitioner were due on respondent as per the petitioner, for the period from February, 2006 to June, 2006, for which the petitioner has not raised the bill except bills of three months of February, March and April, 2006. Learned single Judge after holding that the order of cancellation of the contract of the petitioner was non -speaking order and has been passed only in two lines, but since the term of agreement has already lapsed, therefore, learned single Judge observed that there is no need of passing of any specific order for quashing the impugned order. However, the appellant was allowed to file a representation before the Special Executive Officer, Jharkhand Health Society, Namkum with supporting documents within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order for redressal of his grievances relating to payment of outstanding dues in terms of the agreement in question with direction to the authorities concerned to consider the same and pass speaking and a reasoned order.
(3.) THE petitioner -appellant aggrieved against the order dated 11.9.2012 has preferred this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that order impugned dated 25th July, 2006 is absolutely illegal and void as it is bad in the eye of law and is a non -speaking order. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned single Judge also committed grave error of law as there was no reason for not declaring the order 25th July, 2006 illegal on the ground that term of the contract has come to an end.;