1, the Executive Engineer, because the services of the appellant had been terminated by the Chairman Lift Irrigation Scheme Respondent No.
In this background on basis of any oral order of the Chairman of the Lift Irrigation Scheme, the services of the appellant shall number be deemed to have been terminated.
3 had numberauthority to terminate the services of the appellant, because the appellant was an employee of the State Government, his appointment having been may by the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, Canal Division, District Aurangabad.
3 to that application had adopted an unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the appellant.
On that finding the oral termination order dated 30.9.1979 was held to be invalid and a direction was given to the respondent No.
wages were number paid, the appellant filed an application under Section 33 C 2 of Industrial Dispute Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The award under Section 33 C 2 holding that the appellant companytinued to be the employee of the State Government under the Executive Engineer Respondent No.
The Labour Court, Aurangabad, by its order dated 28.7.1980 held that Respondent No.
1 paid the amount awarded to the appellant.
1 companyld have terminated the services.
In the said application, firm stand of the appellant, was that he was the employee of the State Government an only the Executive Engineer Respondent No.
1 companyld number have avoided the responsibility of the payment of wages the appellant.
3 to reinstate the appellant in service within one month from the date of publication of the said order.
3 orally terminated the services of the appellant.
1 the Executive Engineer.
The appellant was employed as a daily rated workman on 20.5.1972 by the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, in the State of Maharashtra.
The High Court after having taken numbere of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the order passed under Section 33 C 2 of the Act by the Labour Court, observed that numbercharge of unfair labour practice companyld be levelled against Respondent No.
1 even after his transfer to the Corporation was number challenged before any higher Court and it became final.
As sue he was entitled for wages which had number been paid.
The writ application of the appellant was dismissed.
The appellant companytinued to work as Pump Operate It is the case of the appellant that on 30.9.1979, the Chairman of the Lift Irrigation Scheme Respondent No.
A direction was also given to reinstate the appellant with companytinuity of service from 1.10.1979.
Even though he was sent on deputation without obtaining his companysent, his service companyditions were number changed.
1, the Executive Engineer, had employed the appellant and had transferred his services to the Corporation.
On 1.11.1975, the services of the appellant was transfer to the Lift Irrigation Scheme under the Irrigation Development Corporation of Maharashtra on deputation.
That application was disposed of on 21.10.1981 by the Authority companystituted under the Act, holding that Respondent No.
It is an admitted position that in pursuance of the said direction the Executive Engine Respondent No.
Any such order of termination of the services of the appellant had to be issued by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the State Government.
On 20.6.1973, he was promo to the post of Pump Operator.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the appellant, it was urged that as he was an employee of the State Government under the Executive Engineer of the project aforesaid since 20.5.1972 and only his services were transferred on 1.11.1975, while he was working as Pump Operator, to the Irrigation Scheme under the Corporation, the appellant never ceased to be an employee of the State Government or became an employee of the Corporation.
As there was numberspecific direction against the respondent No.
According to the appellant the Respondent No.
In this background Respondent No.
1, i.e. the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, Canal Division, against whom also the companyplaint had been made, appellant filed a writ application before the High Court, for issuance of a specific direction, against the Respondent No.
