JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the oral order of termination of the petitioner passed on 15.4.2001 by respondent No. 4, Project Manager, Project and Tube-well Corporation Unit, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi-cum-Clerk and also to pay salary for the post of Junior Clerk since 1998.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this case arc that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis from time to time for periods of six months each beginning from 1.12.1998. The last contractual engagement of the petitioner made by the respondent-Corporation ended in December, 2000. In this manner the petitioner was engaged, with the respondent-Corporation for about two years and on that basis, the petitioner is now claiming for regularization of his service. From the averments made in the writ petition it is not clear whether the appointment was on any substantive vacancy or not.
3. Sri K.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner having worked for nearly three years, has a right to be regularized in service. He has further submitted that the employees junior to the petitioner are still working in the same department. However, the same is not substantiated by the specific averments in the writ petition as to which of the employees junior to the petitioner are still continuing to work. An attempt has been made in the rejoinder-affidavit to show that certain persons, who had been recruited after the petitioner, had been allowed to continue to work. In the said paragraphs of the rejoinder-affidavit, which have not even been properly sworn and arc said to be based on legal advice, names of the certain persons working as Class IV employee, Stenographer and Junior Engineer have been given who are said to be still working. It has not been stated even there that any person who was junior to the petitioner and working as Store Munshi-cum-Clerk is still continuing to work. It has also not been stated that whether any fresh hand has been recruited on the post on which the petitioner claims to have worked.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the service of the petitioner could not have been terminated except in accordance with Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his contention Sri K.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors., (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 293; Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 182, as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division-I, Saharanpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and Anr., (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2404. I have perused the said judgments. The same relate to regularization of daily wage employees, in which such employees had first approached the Industrial Adjudicator before filing the writ petition in the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing a writ petition without availing the alternative remedy.
5. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-U.P. Project and Tube-well Corporation has submitted that the ground of violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been raised in the writ petition and even if that be so, the petitioner can at best raise the issue before the Appropriate Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Pandey has further submitted that it has been categorically stated in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of the counter-affidavit that there is no post available on which the petitioner is claiming regularization of service and also that there arc no funds for payment of salary. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on account of some extra work which was required to be carried out on a particular project. On the completion of the project, the Corporation discontinued the engagement made on contractual basis. Sri Pandey has also submitted that no discrimination has been made in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner has not been able to point out that the service of any other person, who was similarly situated as the petitioner, has been regularized. Sri Pandey has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Varma and Anr., 1996 (72) Supreme Court Indian Factories Labour Reports 804, wherein it has been held that the appointment on daily wages cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments which would be a back-door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption. He has further placed reliance on Anr. decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1994 (69) Supreme Court Indian Factories and Labour Reports 695, wherein it has been held that even a person who has worked on temporary basis for nine years without break would also not be entitled for regularization and that regular selection cannot be substituted by human considerations.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in my view, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of any relief. Since the petitioner was admittedly engaged on contractual basis on fixed payment, he had a right to continue only till the period of his appointment as set out in the contract. The appointment letter of the petitioner on contractual basis clearly indicates that he was engaged for a certain period and thereafter he had no right of employment to any post with the respondent Corporation. His appointment not having been made on any substantive post, he cannot claim regularization. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any policy of the Corporation under which he is claiming regularization. On the contrary it is the specific case of the respondents that the U.P. Government had issued orders, which strictly prohibited the creation of any post during the financial year in question. In the absence of any policy for regularization of service, the relief prayed for cannot be granted. In the present case, there is no question of termination of service of the petitioner as after the end of period of the contract under which he worked, he ceases to have any right on the post. The submission of the petitioner for being granted the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also cannot be accepted. No such ground has been raised in the writ petition. Even otherwise, for deciding such an issue, evidence would be required to be considered which can best be done by the Industrial Adjudicator and not in this extraordinary writ jurisdiction. There is no averment in the writ petition with regard to non-payment of salary to the petitioner since 1998. Thus, the prayer for payment of arrears of salary since 1998 also cannot be granted.
7. For the foregoing reasons, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed, without there being any order as to costs.