ATAM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is tiled to quash the order of retrenchment of the petitioners dated September 30, 1994.

(2.) THE petitioners were working as Weavers and Wrappers at Bhiwani and Panipat with Haryana State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation namely the 3rd respondent, which is a production company. The 3rd respondent set up production units by installing handlooms at Panipat and Bhiwani and the petitioners were recruited as weavers, wrappers and winders. The respondent Corporation suffered losses and decided to wind up the production activities in its looms at Panipat and Bhiwani. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent-Corporation took a decision in its meeting held on September 30, 1994 to close the units at Bhiwani and Panipat and terminate the contract with weavers engaged on piece rate wage at Panipet and Bhiwani as there was no work with the Corporation to offer them. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the said resolution of the Board of Directors to terminate their services. According to the petitioners, though their services were on contractual basis on piece -rate wages, their services cannot be dispensed with without following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners also contended that they have a right to be adjusted in other Organisations of the State Government.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent-Corporation filed a written statement stating that the petitioners were engaged on piece rate wages from time to time and their nature of work was purely contractual and they have been paid on the basis of the pieces prepared by them at the rate mutually agreed and when the units at Panipat and Bhiwani were running into losses, the Corporation decided to close the said units in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on September 30,1994 and accordingly in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, the contract of service with the petitioners was accordingly terminated. It is also averred that the reason for stoppage of production activities of the Corporation at these two places is also attributed to the utter inefficiency of the petitioners in meeting with the targets fixed by the Corporation which resulted in huge losses. As the petitioners were engaged only on contractual basis, they are not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. It is also contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy which they have not availed. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.