THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21069 OF 2000 Dated: 25.11.2010 Between: K.A.Swamy ..... PETITIONER AND Project Manager, Setvis-Trends and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21069 OF 2000 ORDER : The petitioner herein was engaged by the 2nd respondent-Society as trainer/technician in the year 1988. When his services were terminated on 28.07.1990, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13864 of 1990 along with 17 others contending that they had put in more than 240 days of continuous service and since the 2nd respondent-Society was an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), their termination amounted to unlawful retrenchment in violation of Section 25-N of the Act. It was also contended that the action of the management in terminating the services of the petitioners was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having found that the engagement of the services of the petitioners was on contract basis, this Court rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 26.11.1998 holding that as the services of the petitioners were engaged on contract basis, they were liable to be terminated on the expiry of the period of contract. However, in view of the fact that by virtue of the interim orders granted in the said writ petition, the petitioner herein and four others were permitted to work in their respective posts during the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the management to continue them in their respective posts and to consider their cases for regularisation in the light of the judgment of this Court in G.Sudhakar vs. L.I.C of India[1]. In compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.13864 of 1990, the 1st respondent having considered the case of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 08.09.1999 informing the petitioner that his request for regularisation was rejected. Subsequently, by order dated 31.01.2000 the petitioner’s services, who was working as Welding Instructor on daily wages, were dispensed with, with effect from 31.01.2000 as there were no training programmes at that point of time. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, no couther affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is to be noticed that the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for regularisation of his services has already been considered by this Court in W.P.No.13864 of 1990 and it was held that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin principles laid down in G.Sudhakar’s case (supra 1) namely that the applicant should have been appointed against a clear vacancy and that his appointment was made after going through the selection procedure. No case could be made out by the petitioner even in this writ petition to show that the petitioner had satisfied the above said two conditions. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services is unsustainable and the rejection order dated 08.09.1999 passed by the 1st respondent being in accordance with law warrants no interference. So far as the further contention that the action of the respondents in dispensing with his services is arbitrary and discriminatory is concerned, except a vague plea in the affidavit, no material could be placed before this Court to substantiate that four other petitioners in W.P.No.13864 of 1990, who are similarly situated, are still being continued in service by the 2nd respondent- Society. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner’s services were disengaged on the ground that there was no work. Since the petitioner was admittedly working on contract basis at the relevant point of time, the action of the respondents in disengaging his services for want of work cannot held to be arbitrary and illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.11.2010 Ivd [1] 1998 (6) ALT 147