[2012(6) ADJ 42 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA, JJ.
U.P. STATE HAND LOOM CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63810 of 2008, decided on 19th April, 2012)
By the Court.—We have heard Sri K.N. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ram Surat Saroj holding brief for Sri Jyoti Bhushan appears for the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, State Office, Lucknow through its Director.
2. U.P. State Hand Loom Corporation Ltd., Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter called as ‘the Corporation’) has approached the High Court for quashing the orders dated 2.12.2008, and 24.11.2008, passed by the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, State Office, Lucknow by which directions have been given to the Corporation, to allow Sri Braj Raj - respondent No. 6, to sit in the Office of the Corporation, for payment of his salary on priority basis, and to give requisite information of compliance, within five days.
3. It is submitted by Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation that Sri Braj Raj - respondent No. 6, is not the employee of the Corporation. He was initially engaged as a production supervisor trainee, on a stipend of Rs. 250/- per month, in June 1988, and was thereafter appointed as Production Supervisor w.e.f. 23.9.1991, in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. Since he is only Intermediate, with certificate in elementary weaving and dyeing course, he was retrenched from the Corporation on 25.4.2004, alongwith about 900 employees, under order No. 840-41, after complying with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. His re-engagement was provided only in case of necessity of his services. One Shri Shiv Ganesh Lodhi, the then Chairman of Corporation, a BSP MLA, passed an order on 21.11.2000, directing the Managing Director of the Corporation, to appoint him as Manager (Production), a post for which the minimum qualification was B.E. Textile Engineering, or a Diploma in Textiles from Indian Institute of Handloom Technology. No action was taken on these orders and the matter was referred to the State Government.
4. It is stated that the then Managing Director, vide order dated 23.1.2006, re-employed respondent No. 6, on the post of Senior Manager (Production) in the pay scale of Rs. 3100-4500/- w.e.f. 13.8.1991. This order was passed, when there was complete ban on appointment, in the Corporation w.e.f. on the Government Order dated 8.10.1991. Respondent No. 6, was not qualified to hold the post of Senior Manager (Marketing/Production), for which the essential qualification is Degree in Textile Engineering or Diploma from IIHT. No procedure was followed in such appointment. Since respondent No. 6 was not eligible to be appointed on the post of Senior Manager (Marketing/Production), the then Managing Director, cancelled the illegal appointment on 25.1.2006, i.e. on the third day of his illegal appointment.
5. Sri Braj Raj, instead of approaching the judicial forum in challenging the order, made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), alleging that he is being harassed, and has not been allowed to work. The Director of the Commission sent a notice to the Managing Director of the Corporation, to submit his explanation. The Managing Director, by his letter dated 12.9.2008, sent a detailed reply, to the Director of the Commission, giving the facts as stated above, and also stated that Sri Braj Raj has unauthorisedly entered the office of the Corporation; tried to forcibly put signatures on the attendance register, and started handling the documents. An FIR was lodged at P.S. Kakadeo, Kanpur on 5.10.2006. It was further reported in the reply dated 12.9.2008, that the Managing Director has never abused Sri Braj Raj. Since his appointment dated 22.1.2006, has been cancelled on 25.1.2006, there was no question of allotting him any work, and paying him salary.
6. In the counter-affidavit of Sri R.D. Chandrahas, the Director of the Commission, it is stated in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 as follows :
“8. That thereafter a le
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.