Ravi Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk on daily wage basis in District Rural Development Agency, district Deoria vide appointment letter dated 1.11.1989. His appointment was temporary under a scheme known as Jawahar Rozgar Yojna. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 28.5.1992 by which the Director, Planning District Gramya Abhikaran, Deoria informed the petitioner that his services are no longer required.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of termination dated 28.5.1992 on the ground that Jawahar Rozgar Yojna is still continuing and his services have been terminated illegally and arbitrarily without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to him. It is alleged that instead of regularizing him the respondents have illegally terminated his services.

So far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, it was temporary. There is no mate.rlal on record from which it can be inferred that Jawahar Rozgar Yojna is still continuing, though from Annexures-2 and 3 appended to the writ petition it appears that Jawahar Rozgar Yojna was continuing when the petition was filed. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that juniors to him have been retained in service is concerned, the same is without basis. Neither the petitioner has filed any seniority list of dally wage employees nor has shown any rule before this Court to establish that seniority list of daily wages is prepared in the department and is maintained by it.

The petitioner is a workman as defined under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The allegation that services of the petitioner have been illegally and arbitrarily terminated require oral and documentary evidence. The findings of facts whether the services of the i petitioner has been illegally terminated or not, can be best adjudicated by the labour court after taking evidence. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not decide the questions of fact. The counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the Full Bench judgment given by this Court in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director. U. P. Co-operative Union and Ors. 1991 (2) AWC 10O5 : 1991 (63) FLR 478. he may be permitted to avail alternative remedy available to him.

The Full Bench decision is binding on this case.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.