VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J. - (1.)BY this writ petition, the petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar seeks direction of quashing of the impugned order dated 3.8.1998 issued by the respondent no.1 -Airport Authority of India discontinuing the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. Petitioner claims that petitioner was working with respondent no.1 through an independent contractor for many years and pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United Labour Union and Ors. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 645 petitioner should have been absorbed and regularized by respondent no.1.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner is that though he was employed with the contractor as sweeper/cleaner, he was working for the respondent no.1 and since the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation(supra) upheld the judgment of the Bombay High Court by issuing directions for regularization and absorption by respondent no.1, petitioner was bound to be regularized instead of respondent no.1 illegally discontinuing his services in terms of the impugned order dated 3.8.1998. It is argued before me on behalf of the petitioner that house keeping records which are relied upon by the respondent no.1 are not only violative of principles of natural justice but also they are cursory and lacking in substance. Petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of regularization though petitioner was in fact working in the offices of respondent no.1.
On behalf of respondent no.1, it is stated that no doubt persons who were employed with contractors and working with the respondent no.1 had to be regularized however, petitioner in this case was actually not working with the respondent no.1 as on the date of passing of the judgments of the Supreme Court on 6.11.1996 and 6.12.1996. It is contended that petitioner could not be recognized by the house keeping staff and respondent no.1 was not bound to regularize the petitioner who was not found to be working with it. The factual position in this regard is stated by the respondent no.1 in the following words of the counter -affidavit.

"(a) The petitioner had been engaged by ex -contractor M/s Sri Ram Yadav at Terminal II, IGI Airport and not by the Answering Respondents. The Answering Respondent had only taken him under its care with effect from 1.2.1997, pending detail scrutiny. (b) The services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide letter dated 3.8.98 on account of the following discrepancies. (i) The petitioner could not be identified by the house keeping supervisor committee on the first stage as is evident from the report of the house keeping supervisors committee which is annexed herewith as Annexure ,,A. (ii) The petitioner could not be identified by the house keeping supervisor committee even in the second stage the petitioner was not identified by the house keeping supervisor committee two times even though he was interviewed personally. The copy of the House Keeping Supervisors committee is annexed herewith as Annexure ,,B. (iii) The pay bills for November, 1996 and December, 1996 has been signed by petitioner in English whereas the affidavit /declaration has been signed by the petitioner in Hindi. The two signatures are entirely different. The pay bills for November, 1996 and December, 1996 and the affidavit/declaration are annexed hereto as Annexure -C (Colly) It was on account of these discrepancies that the services of the petitioner were discontinued. It is submitted that the petitioner has been engaged by M/s. Sri Ram Yadav and not by the Answering Respondent. It is also submitted that on the basis of the judgment of the Honble Supreme court dated 6.12.96, all ex -contract workers had been taken under care of Answering Respondent w.e.f 1.2.97 subject to detailed scrutiny, to ascertain the authenticity of genuine workers who were covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court for regularization. In view of the above stated discrepancies, this Honble Court not being a fact finding authority cannot entertain the present writ petition."

(3.)AT the outset I would like to state that I would have preferred not to decide disputed questions of facts in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Disputed question of fact arises because whereas the petitioner states that he was working with respondent no.1 as on the date of passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court and in fact for 10 years prior thereto, respondent no.1 disputes the same and accordingly unless evidence was led this issue could not have been decided. On putting a query to the counsel for the petitioner that as to whether petitioner would like to withdraw this petition and file a civil suit in the civil court, however, counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has no right to approach the Industrial Tribunal or any court in terms of the judgment in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation(supra) and therefore this petition be decided by this Court.