R.C. Lahoti, J. - (1.) JUDGMENT -
(2.) IN the early eighties the government or Rajasthan introduced various programmes and allied schemes for poverty elimination, employment generation etc. It brought into existence bodies known as District Rural Development Agencies (hereinafter referred to as 'DRDAs') registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. The main object of these agencies was to plan and administer the area development programme aiming at integrated Rural Development. IN the year 1992. these DRDAs were concerned with the following schemes: JUDGEMENT_221_SUPREME9_1999Html1.htm The main object of the Agencies was to implement such Schemes and to identify beneficiaries including small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and other persons eligible for assistance under these Schemes. The agencies also coordinated execution of these plans for the benefit of the identified participants through the existing agencies engaged in this direction in the field whether private, public or co-operative. Each District Rural Development Agency was an independent entity with a District Collector as ex-officio Chairman and a Project Director as the Chief Executive Officer. There are 33 districts in the State of Rajasthan and as such there were 33 DRDAs in the State with an ex-offcio Chairman and a Project Director. Subject to the allocation of the fund by the State of Rajasthan to each DRDA for implementation of particular scheme, persons were employed on various posts pursuant to the State Rural Development Agency Employees Service Regulations. 1983. Each DRDA was an independent Agency located in each district. The appointments were made locally and seniority of the employees was also maintained on district basis. There was no inter-se seniority. The jobs were not inter-changeable or transferable from one DRDA to another. The services of the employees strictly depended on funds made available to individual DRDA for implementing its scheme for only a fixed administrative expenses were met out of the same. In the year 1992, looking to the availability of the funds, the government of Rajasthan took a decision to abolish 273 posts in the entire State of Rajasthan belonging to different DRDAs. The DRDAs were accordingly informed. This led to termination of several LDCs, and Class-IV (Peons). The petitioners in Civil Appeal Nos. 5476-83 of 1988 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5484-5494 of 1988 are such Class-111 and Class-IV employees.
(3.) SEVERAL petitions were filed before the High court of Rajasthan challenging such termination of the employees. The principal grounds of challenge were that the petitioners having been appointed regularly against different posts, their services could not have been so terminated unceremoniously. that the petitioners though outwardly appointed in several societies were in fact the employees of the State government inasmuch as their salaries were being paid from the funds made available by the State government and even if the need for such employment had come to an end with the societies. there were several vacancies available with the State government against which the petitioners could have been accommodated and regularised; that the DRDA was 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and yet the provisions of Section 25-F were not complied with and so the termination was bad: and that the rule of last-come-first-go was not followed. The learned single Judges before whom came up the petitions for hearing allowed the same and several orders of termination were directed to be quashed. The State of Rajasthan. as well as the Societies preferred writ appeals which were heard by a Division bench and have been allowed reversing the single bench decisions. The aggrieved petitioners have come up to this Court. The learned single Judges and the Division bench have both held that the DRDA Societies were instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High court. This finding has not been assailed before this court, being unnecessary in the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, and hence we express no opinion thereon. So also neither the single Judges nor the Division bench has held the DRDA Society to be an Industry for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This finding is also not assailed before us.;