The High Court, in a writ petition regarding termination simplicitor and dismissal of an appeal, found no grounds for interference after relying on coordinate bench judgments dismissing similar petitions. The petition challenging service termination and salary claims was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36335 of 2005
Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Kanta Verma,A.K. Srivastava,K.K. Srivastava,N.K.Awasthi,Vijay Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi,who appears on behalf of the contestant respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was a permanent employee working in the U.P. State Textile Corporation in 1994 proceedings were initiated by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and in February, 2000 a scheme for voluntary retirement was floated by the employers for all employees. The same being a non compulsory scheme the petitioner did not opt for V.R.S., alongwith four others persons. On 28.2.2000 and petitioner and three others who are not opted for V.R.S., were issued a notice threaten retrenchment. It is his case that such a notice was never received by him and straightway by an order dated 14.3.2000 the service of the petitioner were terminated by an order of termination simplicitor going three months salary in liew of notice period.
It has been submitted that the petitioner had worked with complete devotion for 27 years with the Corporation. He filed an appeal against the order dated 14.3.2000. The appeal was rejected after five years by the Chairman on 8.2.2005 stating therein that no appeal is maintainable against the order of termination simplicitor. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order of termination simplicitor and the order rejecting his appeal and has prayed for mandamus to be issued to the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. November, 1998 to 14.3.2000 with interest.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Textile Corporation should have given
retrenchment compensation and retrenchment certificate to the petitioner so that he could get the benefit of the Rules framed by the State Government for absorption of retrenched employees of public sector corporations in U.P. But the petitioner was terminated by an order of termination simplicitor and he could not get benefit of Section 6N of the Industrial Dispute Act nor could he be absorbed in any other industry or government department as per the Rules meant for absorption of retrenched employees.
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in similar writ petitions relating to identically situated employees of Textile Corporation whose services were terminated by an order of termination simplicitor. He has referred two judgment one dated 27.7.2012 in Writ-A No. 36419 of 2005 S.N.R.S. Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Others where the petitioner was terminating by the order of termination simplicitor on 14.3.2000, giving him three months salary in liew of the notice and the other Bench judgment rendered on 12.7.2018 in Writ-A No. 36322 of 2005 Ashok Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others . The relevant extract of the judgment dated 12.7.2018 is being quoted herein below:
"By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Chairman, dated 14.3.2000 by which it has been informed that the service of the petitioner is no more required and the petitioner has been directed to collect the salary and other dues from the Accounts Section on any working day. This letter has been issued by the Chairman of the U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman, which has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without giving any opportunity and the Chairman, who has passed the order dated 14.3.2000, has decided the appeal also, which is not justified.
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that since the Corporation was under closure, the Corporation issued notice to various employees, including the petitioner asking them to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He referred the letter dated 28.2.2000 issued by Sri Pradeep Sharma, which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that since the Corporation is under closing process and as such the Management has decided to retrench the employees as per the rule and the Government Order dated 15.2.2000 with immediate effect. They may collect their retrenchment compensation etc., as provided under the Rule, from the Account Department. He submitted that the letter dated 14.3.2000, is only a communication of the decision taken for retrenchment of the petitioner. Therefore, the present
case is covered under the Industrial Dispute Act and the petitioner should seek remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act.
I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents.
The letter dated 28.2.2000 clearly states that the petitioner has been retrenched from the services of the Corporation on payment of retrenchment compensation as a result of the decision taken by the Management, therefore, the dispute falls under the Industrial Dispute Act. Thus, the petitioner should address his grievance under the Industrial Dispute Act. However, in case if the petitioner approaches the Chairman or any other competent authority for retrenchment compensation/three months' salary, which the respondents agreed to pay, the Chairman or any other competent authority may consider and pay the same to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed."
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the case the termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 6N of Industrial Dispute Act, he should have approached the Labour Court as the remedy lay before the Labour Court. But now it i too late in the day to argue that Section 6N was violated and retrenchment compensation was given to him by the respondents, as no such plea has been taken in the writ petition.
It has also been submitted by Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent that retrenchment certificate could have been given in case the petitioner was workman and was retrenched. The petitioner had therefore not been a workman and could not be given a retrenchment certificate and retrenchment compensation.
It has also been argued that Absorption Rules framed by the State Government already stand repeated/rescinded.
This Court after going through the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Writ-A No. 36419 of 2005 and Writ-A No. 36322 of 2005, finds no good grounds to show any interference in the orders impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 9.1.2019 Md Faisal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the termination simplicitor and dismissal of the appeal regarding a former employee of the U.P. State Textile Corporation.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary towards three months notice period, retrenchment compensation, and benefits under absorption rules.
Whether the coordinate bench judgments in similar writ petitions establish grounds for interference in the impugned orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.N.R.S. Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and OthersDistinguished¶12
S.N.R.S. Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Ashok Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and OthersDistinguished¶12
Ashok Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Ajai Kumar Srivastava
State Of U.P
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
