The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the oral termination dated 26.07.2003 of the services of the petitioner by respondent no.1-Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra, Naroda Industrial Estate Branch, Ahmedabad, by filing this petition on 05.08.2003. Notice was issued by this Court on 11.08.2003. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on umpteen number of occasions mainly for two reasons; (i) "by consent", and
(ii) "none remained present".
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr.Medipally, the learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out any reason for which this Court should exercise its discretionary power in the matter which involves, even according to the learned advocate a disputed question of fact, for which leading necessary evidence documentary as well as oral with an opportunity to other side to controvert will be necessary.
Mr.Medipally, the learned advocate submitted that the respondent-Bank is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that therefore, a direct petition is maintainable. Mr.Medipally could not convince this Court that in the matters against 'State', a direct petition is maintainable and the employees are not required to resort to the remedy before Labour Court. He also submitted that no reply is filed by the respondent Bank. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no substance in the submissions of the learned advocate. Therefore, the same are rejected.
3.In view of that this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is misconceived and the petitioner shall resort to the remedy available to him under the relevant provisions of Labour laws. The present petition is therefore, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) karim