Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER seeks quashing of the order of retrenchment dated 15. 4. 2004 and a direction that he be allowed to continue on the post of Depot Manager-Grade II at U. P. Handlooms Showroom, Nehru place, New Delhi, presently held by him.

( 2 ) PETITIONER joined U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. , i. e. , respondent no. 3 in 1979. Petitioner had joined as a Salesman, got promoted as Senior salesman and finally as Depot Manager-Grade II, upon being transferred from ambala to Munirka.

( 3 ) PETITIONER assails notice dated 12/13. 4. 2004, published in Amar Ujala, mentioning names of 866 employees for retrenchment w. e. f. , 15. 4. 2004 including that of petitioner. Petitioner claims that respondents failed to comply with the requisite mandatory provisions for retrenchment. Petitioner also assails the rehabilitation package approved by the State Government. Petitioner is aggrieved since his name in the seniority list displayed on 6. 4. 2004, is shown at Sr. No. 40. It is claimed that the seniority list has been wrongfully manipulated to show 15 persons, who are junior to the petitioner, as seniors. Petitioner states that he has been working in the Regional Office at New Delhi under a Regional manager and claims that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the writ petition. While issuing show-cause notice on 28. 5. 2004, Union of India was deleted as not being a proper or necessary party. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the lack of jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner is assailing the retrenchment notice, which was issued by respondent No. 3 i. e. , U. P. State Handloom corporation Ltd. It was published in Amar Ujala in U. P. Petitioner assails the rehabilitation package, which was again approved by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were located in UP. The seniority list, which is assailed, was also made by respondent No. 3 and put up on the notice board in UP. In other words, it is urged that no part of cause of action, relevant for the purposes of writ petition, has arisen in Delhi. Petitioner received his salary drawn and sent by respondent no. 3.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner on the other hand in support of his contention that the present writ petition be entertained, submits that petitioner works in delhi. He submits that respondent No. 3 has been acting in a discriminatory manner and adopting a policy of pick and choose. Respondent No. 3 did not raise any objection of jurisdiction in the case of R. K. Bhola v. U. P. State handloom Corporation Ltd. , in WP (C) 4530 of 1998 and the writ petition was duly entertained by a learned Single Judge of this Court and relief granted. He submits that petitioner therein was also working as Depot Incharge under the regional Marketing and Manager. Reference is also made to WP (C) No. 4051 of 97 titled K. K. Singh v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. , wherein the division Bench of Punjab High Court entertained the writ petition. He further submits that since respondent No. 3 had not taken objection to jurisdiction in these proceedings, he should be precluded from taking objection in the present case also.

( 6 ) I am. not persuaded to accept this argument. In the case of R. K. Bhola v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. , (supra) the challenge was to a show cause notice for termination of services for negligent act, committed at the Sales depot. The show-cause notice was challenged as having been issued without holding any inquiry into the matter in question. This was the admitted position before the learned Judge. Further, a recovery was also sought to be made of Rs. 1,21,573. 70. A perusal of the said order dated 22. 5. 2002 does not show that the objection of jurisdiction was raised. There is no discussion on this aspect. Similar is the situation in titled K. K. Singh v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (supra) Here also challenge was to an oder of rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document