R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) PETITIONERS in all the aforesaid writ petitions are employees of District Co-operative Bank Limited, Fatehpur. They were employed on different dates and on different posts on daily wages or on ad- hoc basis as stop gap arrangements. However, services of petitioners have been terminated on different dates in the year 1989. In all the writ petitions the questions of law and facts for determination are identical and all these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 21438 of 1989 shall be the leading case.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that they were employed by District Co operative Bank Limited, Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on ad-hoc basis. Though appointments were made for short spells of 89 days but they have served continuously without any break upto the date of termination. THEir claim is that they have worked for long time and they became entitled in law to be regularised on their posts but the respondents illegally terminated petitioners from service in gross violation of law. I have heard Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners, and Shri A. Kumar along with Shri H. R. Misra, counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his fervent and appealing arguments vehemently submitted that once the Bank employed petitioners on the basis of stop gap arrangement and allowed them to work on their posts for a long time without any interruption though not strictly in accordance with the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), they cannot be permitted to deprive the petitioners of their jobs all of a sudden taking the stand that now they have become law abiding If the respondents nos. 1 and 2 have not acted in accordance with law, they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own fault at this juncture. The action of respondents is arbitrary and capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Relying on a number of judgments of Honourable Supreme Court dealing with the problem of daily wagers and ad-hoc employees in various organisations (which shall be discussed at the appropriate places) it has been submitted that the action of the respondents is against the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution particularly Article 41 which defines the objectives and goals which the State must endeavour to achieve over a period of time. It has been further submitted by Shri Agarwal that Regulation 5 provides that the recruitment for all appointments in co-operative societies shall be made through U P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). However, the Board which is the single centralised agency for purpose of recruitment of the employees has been reduced to be a non-functional body as it cannot cope with the demand of large number of recruitments in respect of more than one lakh co-operative societies spread all over the state. Submission of Shri Agarwal is that the provisions of Regulations 5 and 15 prohibiting the employment otherwise than through the Board is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. As there is no explanation for not acting according to law, the exercise of power or non-exercise of power has become a whimsical act for the Board and the committees of management of the Cooperative Societies in matters of employment. After over five years, the ad-hoc employees are regularised. The purpose and object behind framing Regulations 5 and 15 are not being served and there is no useful purpose in keeping these provisions on the Statute book. The Committee of Management and the Board must act within the period contemplated and in case they are not able to act, the employees working on daily wages or on ad-hoc basis must be deemed as regularised.
(3.) IT has further been submitted that once the respondents employed petitioners and have allowed them to work for such a long time, it is not open to them to plead that appointment was not legal and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Regulations of 1975. They are estopped under law. The alleged contract in the circumstances is unconscionable. The termination of the appointment of petitioners from their posts amounts to retrenchment and inviolation of section 6N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and the orders are illegal and void as the petitioners have already worked for more than 240 days on their posts. As the termination is illegal and void, petitioners are entitled to be reinstated on their posts. Shri A. Kumar, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not disputed that the appointments of petitioners were made after 1972 when the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board was established by Gazette Notification published on 4-3-1972 and the enforcement of Regulations of 1975. The appointments could only be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Regulations of 1975. The appointments of petitioners are illegal, hence they cannot claim any benefit.;