ii‘IFE : E Him 7% ‘ m q/ ‘; “KM ..... ..... w.P. (f6 OE 2000 PEITTION UNDER AHI‘ICLE 226 8c 227 - petitmner:- Ramrag 03h 0/9 Udainath Ojha, R/g Gavt Educaumanal C®1lege Jwiyt) F BILA0pUgz C0mpus, Lgrbgh r Chm/«k ..... ............ g. : ‘ Resgendenthl)Callect0r, 0 BILASPUR (Chhattisgarh) Ck)” 3‘3? p, 8 ‘ ”'w /)E’€ W ......... ‘ way; a W W- / ‘ 1 Parclcul rs @J. the &t1t16ncr.- AiEbimLe in causier‘tl'tLE XI-HC-ZZ n $‘i!é§§ m g4) WI $$m E 2% m § WW(W§) m jiii ”2“ mmanaig‘a Wmfwm Bilaspur. The said Qrder of termination was impugned before the Labour Court,Bilaspur, "whe Presiding officer Labour Court by order dated 27.2.97 accepted the icontention‘ g; of the writ petitioner a d he was ordered 'to be re—instated ‘ with back wages. Accord-i qly,the petitioner was reeinstated. While continuing; after e: order of re-instatement as hostei Iservant ’a’hother order o termination was again issued \ on 5.2.2000 by responde no.2. However,the said order; of termination was (cancell by the concerned authority and the n e writ petitioner was rest red to‘ his earlier service condi- > tions. While oontinuing n the éost of hostel servant,after the order" of termination has cancelled as stated above, the order’ imbugned in the pr sent writ petition.i.e. 90 / 2000 h came tor he isslied' by the Collector,Bilaspur. 3. ' Shri Agrawal ,1ear ed counsel for the petitioner \L “submits that the. order o termination dt. 13¢5.2000 is not sustainable: amongyo er rgronnds, because no opoorvn’xig'ity of being heard was given to the writ petitioner before the order of termination was issued. It is also stated bythe learned counsel that in act the representation was sub- > ‘mitted to the comtetent uthority stating that the said order of termination con d not have been issued in as much as writ hetition "No. 154 /98 was pending as regards the service conditions of t I writ petitioner v. 4. It may be stated at against the order a of re— ; instatement issued by e learned Labour Court,the state GRPRJ~F82§11el/2001 50,000.43 “i was at issue, the' impugned 13.5.2000 was run-called fox gny jurisdiction to do so.‘ preferred the aforesaid writ'petiticn challenging the validity of the order of the labour court. 5. submits that this writ petition is not maintainable simply because‘thereis an altern‘sitive remedy available to the ought to have approached the Agrawal' ubmits that in View of the pendency of the earlier petition in which the same order of termination order of termination issued on ~and\ the same was issued without InA such a situation it is sub- mitted 'that there is no‘ banr‘ for the writ petitioner tolw 226 of the Constitution of cise of jurisdiction under Article 6. In my View though normally the petitioner could have apprOached the labour court since the earlier order of termination was at tion preferred by“ the State. betitioner could not have cc r'w it petitioner. According to Mr. ' Bhadur~i,the writpetit'ione Labour Court . Mr . rapproach this court y exer ...4 W ex e India. for an order of termination issued against him.in the present situation issue in the earlier writ peti~ it can not be said that.the ’me before this court invoking [1% hie: ’ Mr. Gautam Bhaduri,l arned Mppearing 4 for’the respondent / State J x1.Hc.22 fa W m,W éfg/ T5,ié?’.‘??7??ff.i‘;;;L'ifififif??...if”? 7 w m $§éw WWW m1§$ WITHW wwaéhfag?m ‘ ‘ WWWWW %=i {W 3!!“W —;u1 m ‘ ..4.. $ &¥r.§W amifé‘vr g .WW éxmnm £mM [ A a: W'W power under Article 226 3f the Constitution cf India, in asmuch as the main issue of termination was already raised in the writ petition no. 1547/98 which is yet to be decided . 7. Upon careful peru a1 of the various orders passed in the present case and th averments mentioned in the writ petition and after hear‘ng Sihri Sanjay Si. Aqrawal counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Mr.Gau%am Bhaduri,1earned panel lawyer appearing or the state, I am of the view that the writ, petitione has made-out a case for inter— ference by this court V y invoking jurisdiction under Artia cle 226 of theConst'itut on of India msée 0 the eame issue DJ» of termination of servicte'wa-s raised an’d: the same is still pending for disposal,the impugned order of terminatiif‘: dated 13.5.2009 could not have been issued by the competent authority andthat too without affording any opportunity of hearing . ' W 8a In the result. this petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dt. 13.5.2000 issued by collector is quashed, The petitioner shall be dealt-with in aczordance with the provisions ofxsection 17—3 of the Industrial disputes Act‘ I Jyotishi GRPRJ FS/311 1/2001~50,000. k. v\ a 7. in W' a