JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. THIS petition is directed against alleged oral termination of services of the petitioner from the post of Driver in the officer of the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ranipur Block, district Mau. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ petition, are, that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in Bal Vikas Pariyojna Department, Azamgarh, vide order dated 21.4.1989 in a clear vacancy caused by transfer of erstwhile Jeep Driver of Pariyojna Office, Ranipur. The appointment of the petitioner was on daily wages and it is alleged that he was paid salary upto May, 1994 and thereafter payment of salary was stopped. 3. THE contention of the petitioner is that he has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and is entitled to be regularised in pursuance of the letter dated 22.7.1992 issued by the Government. In this regard, he had filed Writ Petition No. 33291 of 1992, Ram Sakal Yadav v. Director, Bal Vikas and Pushtahar, U. P. Lucknow and others. THE writ petition was decided by this Court, vide order dated 18.9.1992. This writ and petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No. 2 regarding regularisation of his service. Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the said representation within six weeks from the date of making of the representation by the petitioner. It was further observed that if there are sanctioned funds and if the posts are available then appropriate orders be passed. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, after inter department communications, the petitioner was directed to appear in driving test on 29.9.1994 and written test on 29.10.1994. THE petitioner submits that some other persons were appointed in the department but he has not been allowed to sign the Attendance Register or the Log Book and his salary was also not paid since January, 1994, which amounts to oral termination. He further contends that there is a Government order dated 13.4.1992 providing for regularisation of the employees working in different local bodies, having completed three years continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year. He further contends that there is a Government order dated 13.4.1992 providing for regularisation of the employees working in different local bodies, having completed three years continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year. This Government order, according to the petitioner, further provides that such persons should not be removed or dismissed from service who are working on 11.10.1989 if they had not completed three years but would be allowed to continue and absorbed in service whenever the vacancy arises. 4. IN the counter-affidavit, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has never, actually and continuously worked for 240 days as alleged by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not worked with effect from May, 1994 and in fact he had not come on the duty, being a temporary employee. He has been paid for the job till he had actually worked. It is stated that the date mentioned in Annexure-3 to the writ petition is wrong and a typographical error. It is further stated that the Government order does not give any benefit to the daily wage employees. IN paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner has been absconding with the key of the vehicle since May, 1994 and the vehicle is standing in the office being out of order. The standing counsel further contends that there are no rules for regularisation of Jeep Drivers applicable to the department and as such in order to comply with the directions of this Court for considering the petitioner for regularisation, a written test and interview was held in which the petitioner appeared and failed, hence he was not regularised. Thus, the representation of the petitioner was decided on 7.10.1996. The delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner was due to inter departmental communications as there were no rules for regularisation of the services of the Jeep Driver and the order of this Court had to be complied with. 5. IN support of his contentions, the petitioner has relied upon the following cases : (1) Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U. P., (1986) UPLBEC 254 (SC) (Para 2). (2) Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and others, 1988 (1) AWC 414 (SC) : (1986) UPLBEC 260 (SC) (Para 3). (3) State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1353 (Para 49). (2) Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and others, 1988 (1) AWC 414 (SC) : (1986) UPLBEC 260 (SC) (Para 3). (3) State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1353 (Para 49). (4) Nahar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, (1996) 1 SCC 435 (Paras 7, 8 and 9). 6. IT may be mentioned that the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The law is settled that a daily wager or a temporary employee has no right to the post. Admittedly, there are not rules of regularisation in the department for the post of Jeep Driver. The petitioner, therefore, was called for written test and interview for being considered for regularisation on the post, in pursuance of this Court's order dated 18.9.1992 passed in the Writ Petition No. 33291 of 1992 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner having failed in the test for regularisation, cannot claim the post as a matter of right. This Court will not dwell into a finding of fact as to whether the petitioner has in fact completed 240 days of actual service or not or as to whether he has absconded from work. There is no such thing as oral termination in labour jurisprudence. If the petitioner alleges that his services were terminated, he had to avail any of the remedies as provided under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, i.e., arbitration, conciliation, adjudication, etc., as has been held by Full Bench in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union and others, 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 (63) FLR 478. The petitioner has not even filed any application before the concerned labour authority alleging that his services have been terminated and State machinery be moved for conciliation in the matter. This itself gives rise to the suspicion to the stand taken by the petitioner. He has also not even reported the matter to the Labour Enforcement Officer or taken any other steps by which it could be inferred that his services had been terminated. The contention of the petitioner that his services have been orally terminated is without any supporting evidence or material on record and cannot be accepted being wholly vague. He has also not even reported the matter to the Labour Enforcement Officer or taken any other steps by which it could be inferred that his services had been terminated. The contention of the petitioner that his services have been orally terminated is without any supporting evidence or material on record and cannot be accepted being wholly vague. The counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that the workman may not be relegated to the alternate remedy and the case be decided on merits on the basis of the pleadings as averred in the writ petition. The petitioner having shown his inclination for the case to be decided by this Court on merits, he is not being relegated to the forum of alternate remedy. 7. NO other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. THE writ petition has no force and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.