( 1 ) RESPONDENT was engaged as daily wager in appellant-Corporation way back in 1980. He was later assigned duties of Assistant Grade-111 from 17. 12. 1984 and also-paid wages in that category. He sought regularisation of his services on this-post and took a typing test and interview for this but could not be allegedly regularised because of pendency of writ Petition No. 3777/85 on the subject matter, though services of some of his Juniors were regularised, according to him, meanwhile.

( 2 ) A complaint was lodged against this Respondent on 21. 9. 1987 of having accepted bribe of Rs. 150. 00 and he was discharged next day on 22. 9. 1987. He challenged this by cwp No. l21/88 and sought quashment of this order and also a declararion that Impugned action was punitive based on unilateral findings of guilt emanating from allegations of misconduct. He claimed that he could not be ousted without being regularised and without recourse being taken to procedure provided under Staff Rules of 1978 providing for holding of an enquiry and opportunity of hearing. He also complained that his discharge was violative of Section 25-F of IDA.

( 3 ) APPELLANT questioned the maintainability of writ petition for raising an industrial dispute which was not liable to be examined in writ jurisdiction on merits, it was contended that Respondent was a daily rated worker not holding any post and thus could not claim any right of inquiry or hearing. Nor could he invoke Section 125-F of ida without raising an industrial dispute. He was disengaged by a simplicitor order of discharge visiting him with no consequences whatever. It was denied that services of any of his juniors were regularised, and those regularised were claimed to be senior to him.

( 4 ) UPON this Writ Court, took the view that since respondents order of discharge was founded on the bribe charge it was punitive in nature which could not be passed without inquiry and opportunity of hearing being given to him. Support for this was drawn from several Supreme Court judgments including AIR 1984 SC 636 (Anoop Jaiswal Vs. GOU. 1971 (2) SLR 1345 (Phandis Vs. State of Maharashtra) and Daily Rated Casual Labour Vs. Union (AIR 1997 SC 2342 ). The first two judgments were relied upon for examining the nature of impugned action and lifting its veil and the third one for drawing analogy of equal treatment between daily rated worker and the regularised one where the two were discharging the same nature of duties. An official note dated 21. 9. 1987 reflecting the complaint against Respondent was also taken in regard to conclude that impugned action was founded on misconduct of respondent resulting in penal consequeces to him. The court held as under:-

"in view of the fact that petitioner has been continuously working for more than seven years with the respondent and was performing the same kind of service which was done by the regular employees, doing same type of work it cannot be said that the petitioner had no right even for a fair opportunity of being heard or an opportunity to explain his conduct in view of what was alleged to have been recovered from his person. " The manner and method of summary dismissal for an employee who has been working for seven years with the respondent. The respondents themselves have conducted typing test for his regular appointment to the post of AG-III. Admittedly respondent was taking work from the petitioner pursuant to the duty chart of the respondent. It cannot be held that the petitioner has no right, an elementary right of being given an opportunity to explain his conduct. The stand of the respondent on this ground is not tenable. "

( 5 ) APPELLANT feeling aggrieved has filed this Appeal to assail the impugned Judgment on the ground that writ court had drawn wrong analogy from Supreme Court Judgments relied upon by it and had fallen in error in holding that respondent was to be granted an opportunity of hearing in an inquiry to be held against him before he was dis