N. L. Ganguly, J.- - (1.) THESE petition by Umesh Chandra Pandey and six others connected writ petition no. 30483 of 1990 by Pradeep Shangloo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and others and Writ Petition No. 29177 of 1990 U. P. Rajya Khanj Vikas Nigam Karamchari Sangh v. U. P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigain have been filed by the employees of the corporation for relief that an order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders for retrenchment of the petitioners be quashed. Further relief of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners on their respective posts and a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary to the petitioners on the basis of equal pay for equal work be given. The petitioners of the leading writ petition were appointed on various dates in the year 1981 and 1982 on the post of Office Assistant, Challan Supervisor, Despatch Superviser Chowkidar and peon, respectively. The other petitioners of the connected writ petition were appointed as Trading Munshi (clerk) at the office of the respondent no. 2 at Allahabad. The third petition is on behalf of Union of employees. They had been receiving consolidated salary but were not made regular employees of the Corporation. They had been working with the Corporation for several years and, thus, have admittedly worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously. Admitted, the respondent no. 2 who are the State owned corporation have their offices at Lucknow, Jhansi, Obra, Chopan, Karvi (District Banda) Lalitpur, Dehradun. Kanpur etc. The respondents are engaged in mining and excavation ,of minor minerals, e.g. ganite mines, lime stones, silica mines etc.
(2.) THE petitioners of the leading writ petition admittedly had filed writ petition no. 15654 of 1990 claiming equal pay for equal work which was being paid to the permanent employees. THE said writ petition was filed on 10-7- 1990. THE petition could not be taken up after the service of the notice to the respondents. Curiously, the respondents, instead of giving the petitioners equal pay for equal work and grant of regularisation, issued termination orders of services of the employees by way of retrenchment by taking aid of the provisions of section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondents, U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation Limited entered into an agreement with Hepworth Minerals and Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hepworth') relating to the development of silica sand deposits at Lalapur, U. P. A deed of Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the respondent and the Hepworth on 10th September, 1990. Thus, by the Memorandum of Understanding executed, a joint sector was created for Float Glass project at Bargarh whereby Continental Float Glasses was to be manufactured by the joint company. The Hepworth was to provide the technical know-how and technical services to the joint company in respect to the project and the continuing manufacture and sale of Lalapur silica sand. The perusal of the Mamorandum of Understanding produced by the counsel for the respondent no. 2 clearly shows that the respondent no. 2 had not closed its business but had taken aid of the 'Hepworth' and flated a joint company for manufacture, sale etc. of float glass. It is worth mentioning that the perusal of the memorandum of understanding shows that the respondent no. 2 have not closed their commercial activities and they still continue the business conducted by them in pursuance of the memorandum of understanding. The petitioners' case set up is that the order of termination by retrenchment is wholly illegal, malafide and liable to be set, aside. They are entitled to be regularised as having been worked for more than 240 days in an year. The petitioners alleged that their services have been terminated out of malice as they had filed a writ petition for equal pay for equal work which is pending. The respondents filed their counter affidavit and pleaded specifically that the present writ petitions are barred on the ground of alternative remedy avaiable before the Labour Court. The respondents urged that the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act have been rightly invoked and notice along with bank draft for paying compensation to the retrenched employees have been given which they have accepted. The submission for the counsel for the respondents is thai: the disputed questions of fact about the period of working of the petitioners is involved in the writ petition and further evidence is also required for considering the question whether the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act were invoked correctly in the present case.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents urged that the alternative remedy as provided under the Act is a complete bar and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. THE respondents in their counter affidavit in paragraph 4 sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) pointed out that the U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation Limited have various units which are engaged in independent work at different places. One unit is independent from other units of the corporation. THE different units of the corporation have regular staff and daily rated workers and workers on consolidated wages at different wages. THE respondents pointed out that all the non-regular employees of Lalapur, district Allahabad have been retrenched and there was no question of retaining any person junior to the petitioners at Allahabad. THE respondents admitted in paragraph 4 (g) that Lalapur unit of district Allahabad has been transferred to the joint-sector unit, with the Hepworth. THE respondents, thus, wanted to say that Lalapur silica sand minings unit of the corporation ceased to exist. The preliminary objection of the respondent about the alternative remedy is misconceived. The respondents have not denied the allegations of the petitioners of the leading writ petition or the other writ petitions that they had been working since 1981, 1982 and 1988 respectively. The reply in the counter affidavit is that they were allowed to continue as daily wage workmen on consolidated wages at Lalapur since the work of the unit has been continuing for the last many years. The other question that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days is not disputed in view of the non-denial by the respondents. The perusal of the paragraph 1 of the counter affidavit of Sanjai Kumar on behalf of the respondent no. 2 on the date of the filing of the counter affidavit, i.e. 5th December, 1990, clearly mentions that the said Sanjai Kumar is posted as Mining Engineer with the U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation at Allahabad unit and has been authorised to file the detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. The allegations made in the body of the counter affidavit that Lalapur unit of Allahabad has ceased to function is belied in view of the admitted statement. The perusal of the admitted document produced by the counsel for the respondents, 'Memorandum of Understanding' also shows that the respondent no. 2 has not ceased to function. It is still operating with the aid of the Hepworth and are now jointly functioning as a joint organisation. The said fact is admitted and needs no further evidence to investigate the question whether the respondent has ceased to function to decide whether the provisions of section 25-FF of the Act are applicable or not.;