( 1 ) THE petitioner employed as a Security Superintendent by the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the management) has challenged the older of dismissal passed against him with effect from 5-6-1985 on the ground that the said order of dismissal is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and it also smacks of victimisation and unfair labour practice. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Praksh Gupta -v.- Delton Cable India (P) ltd, AIR1984 SC 914 , [1984 (48 )FLR417 ], (1984 )I LLJ546 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE474 , (1984 )2 SCC569 , [1984 ]3 SCR169 , 1984 (1 )SLJ569 (SC ), 1984 (16 )UJ523 (SC ) and in the light of the amendment to Section 2 (s) of the. D. Act (for short the Act) raising the upper limit of salaries drawn by supervisors to Rs. 1600/- so as to enable them to qualify themselves for the relief to which they are entitled to under the Act, there could be no doubt that the petitioner was a workman though he was holding the post of Security superintendent. Thus, the various contentions raised by the petitioner could have been the subject matter of an industrial dispute as provided for under the Act, but the management has not taken such a stand, obviously because the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court, if a reference had been made by the State Government, would have been unassailable and it has conceded that the questions raised by the petitioner could be disposed of in this Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a graduate and he joined the services of the management after serving for about 16 years in the Indian Air Force. He had an unblemished record of service till certain malpractices arising out of a beneficial piece of welfare scheme were unearthed by the management sometime in the year 1984. This scheme was introduced by the management pursuant to the decision of the Government of India making it obligatory on the management to encourage their workmen to adopt family planning for the betterment of their families. The management accordingly by a circular letter dated 28th October, 1976, informed its workmen that the following facilities would be extended to them as an incentive to undergo vasectomy/tubectomy operations. The facilities offered to the workmen are : 1) transport from residence to nursing home/hospital ; 2) free vasectomy/tubectomy by competent surgeon at the nursing home/hospital ; 3) post-operative care at the nursing home/hospital ; 4) transport from nursing home to residence ; 5) six days special leave ; 6) cash benefit of Rs. 200/- ; 7) in case the wives of the employees undergo tubectomy operation without delivery 7 days casual leave is sanctioned to the employees. This circular letter was preceded by another circular letter dated 21-8-1975 under which, as an incentive for the successful implementation of the National Family Planning programme, the management, as a special case, was pleased to sanction Rs. 200/- to such of those employees who had undergone vasectomy/tubectomy operations on production of certificate from the competent authority in addition to the present practice of sanctioning Special Leave for six days during the period, The management had also enumerated a list of eligible nursing homes and clinics wherein these operations could be performed. Additionally, the management had issued another circular letter dated 29-6-1984 informing its employees that sterilisation operations under the family planning scheme should not be performed in the nursing homes which had been specifically de-recognised by the management. The list of de-recognised nursing homes was also enclosed in that circular letter. The nursing home in question in this Petition is not one of the de-recognised nursing homes since it does not find a place in the list attached to the said circular letter.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that a large number of workmen abused this scheme by producing false medical certificates from doctors of question