The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of legal provisions, such as notifications, is contingent upon the specific designation and role of the individual in question. The court emphasized the importance of accurately interpreting and applying legal provisions in accordance with the factual circumstances.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“9(A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of termination dtd.17th April, 2013 at Annx.A by considering the Govt. Notification dtd.14th July, 2004 at Annx.B and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to reinstate with continuity of service to the petitioner with all benefits including wages.

(C) The Hon. Court may be pleased to direct the resdt.no.1 to implement the Govt. Notification dtd.14th July, 2004 at Annx.B against the resdt.no.2 and on that basis set aside the termination order dtd.17/4/13 at Annx.A And further be pleased to direct the resdt.no.2 to instate the petitioner with continuity of service with all benefits including wages.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition direct the resdt.no.1 to implement the Govt. Notification dtd.14/7/04 at Annx.B against the resdt.no.2 and on that basis stay the order of termination dtd.17/4/13 at Annx.A passed by the resdt.no.2 and further be pleased to direct the resdt.no.2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all benefits including wages.

(E) To award cost of this petition from the respondent.

(F) xxx”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Yogi Gadhia for respondent no.2.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Safety Engineer with the respondent no.2 with effect from 22.2.2013 on certain terms and conditions. It is further submitted that after a period of 55 days of his service, the petitioner was terminated by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 17.4.2013, copy of the said order is placed on record at page no.18. Learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that at the time of terminating the services of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has not followed the provisions contained in the notification dated 14.7.2004 issued by the Labour and Employment Department. Learned advocate has referred to the said notification, copy of which is placed on record at page no.19. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, more particularly, referred to page no.21 of the compilation and submitted that as per the said clause, any employer who intends to dismiss or terminate the services of the Safety Officer has to inform to the government and take prior permission of the government. Learned advocate submits that in the present case, respondent no.2 has not followed the said procedure and did not obtain the prior permission of the respondent no.1-government and therefore the action of the respondent no.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner informed the respondent no.2 vide communication dated 26.4.2013 about the termination of his services by the respondent no.2. However, respondent no.1, vide communication dated __6/13, informed the petitioner that the action of termination of service by respondent no.2 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition.

4. Learned advocate submits that the respondent no.2 was required to obtain prior permission of the respondent no.1 before terminating the services of the petitioner as per the notification dated 14.7.2004 and when the respondent no.2 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the said notification, the action of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside and thereby direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Gadhia has vehemently opposed this petition. Learned advocate has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in