UMESH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dtd. 27/9/2024 (Annexure-P/8) whereby his services have been terminated and he has been removed from service. The said order/communication is made by respondent No.5/Director, Urmila International Service Private Ltd.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Urmila International Service Private Ltd. is a registered company under the statute and having its registered number. He also submits that the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated in this manner, that too without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He further submits that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued against the respondent-employer in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others (2003) AIR (SC) 4325 and also in the case of The Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual and others (1969) 1 SCC 585. He further submits that the petitioner is the employee of respondent No.5 though it is a private company and therefore outsourcing services of the petitioner are provided to respondents No.2 to 4 and the termination order is apparently illegal and in violation to the principles of natural justice, and therefore writ can be issued because the respondents are engaged in performing the public duty. He further submits that the petitioner was performing the duties with respondents No.2 to 4, a company which is involved in generation of electricity and its supply to the public and therefore it is a public duty and the petition is maintainable.