THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.23054 of 2000 ORDER: 1 The petitioner approached this court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction(s) essentially in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to retain and continue the petitioner herein as Mazdoor in the Respondent No.1 organisation or in any other units of the respondent No.1 organisation and pay the petitioner herein the arrears of salary / wages that is due and payable to him for the last 30 months with bank rate interest by holding the action of the respondents herein in not allotting any work to the petitioner herein and forcing him to take voluntary retirement under voluntary retirement scheme as illegal, arbitrary, bad, discriminatory, irrational, illogical, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner was working as Mazdoor in the first respondent shugar unit under the displaced quota. However, as the management of the first respondent unit was facing financial crisis, it sold away the said unit to the second respondent herein and in the light of the said sale, the petitioner lost his job. As his employment was under the displaced quota and his services should have been continued, he approached this court and filed the present writ petition. 3 Heard. 4 The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the first respondent sold away the unit to the second respondent, question of removing the petitioner from services does not arise for the reason that the petitioner got the employment under the displaced quota and the first respondent should have accommodated him in any one of its units. 5 I find some force in the said contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But it should be remembered that the said removal was as early as in the year 1998 and the petitioner is out of service for the last more than 12 years. At this length of time it cannot be said that the first respondent should consider the case of the petitioner and accommodate him in any one of the units belonging to the first respondent. The counsel for the second respondent stated that even the second respondent had also sold away the said sugar factory to the third parties. 6 In those circumstances, this court is of the view that no direction can be given to the respondents at this length of time. 7 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. -------------- 25.11.2010 Kvsn