- (1.) This instant special appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 24, 1992 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition 7801 of 1990 (S/S).
(2.) The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the special appeal are stated. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, hereinafter called the respondent, preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging alleged oral termination of his service by the appellants on the ground that they have not done so in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent claimed that he is a workman as stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, that since June 12, 1989 the respondent had been working in the Life Insurance Corporation as a Clerk and he had been getting salary as such as a daily rated employee upto the month of June, 1990, that the respondent is getting salary from appellant No. 2, after getting applications from him. Some of the applications and vouchers had been attached as Annexures 1 to 6 to the writ petition. The respondent claimed that he worked satisfactorily and as a workman who had worked for longer period than 240 days in a year he could not have been retrenched because of the provisions of Sections 2 (oo), 25 (F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent also claimed that his employment on contract basis is wholly one-sided and like other regular employees of Class-III of the Corporation, he is also entitled to equal pay for equal work. The alleged retrenchment was, therefore, challenged on the ground that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been followed the same is bad and illegal, that when sanctioned post is available the respondent could not have been retrenched and that oral termination is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent, therefore, claimed the relief that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties not to dispense with the respondent's service on the post of clerk and to treat him as a regular employee on the said post and to pay equal salary for equal work as if the respondent was a regular employee. A writ of certiorari to quash the oral order of termination of the respondent was also prayed for. The Life Insurance Corporation contested the petitioner's case. It filed a counter-affidavit. The stand taken in the counter- affidavit was that the respondent was engaged on contract basis Rs. 40/- per day for doing the given work for fixed period. Reference was made to Annexures 1,3 and 5 to the writ petition wherein the respondent himself had confirmed that he worked on contract basis. It was said that Industrial Act will not be applicable in this case as the respondent was engaged on purely contract basis. It was further asserted that the respondent was given office work on contract basis on different occasions wherever there was a need for taking such work and he was paid salary as a daily rated contract employee. It was admitted that after July 1, 1990 the petitioner was not given any work since mere was no work to be performed in the appellant's office on contract basis. It was also alleged in the counter-affidavit that on similar terms and conditions Sushil Mishra, Purshottam Singh and Chhitij Shukla mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ petition worked for fixed number of days but none of these persons are continuing to work in the Corporation. The status of the respondent as a workman was strongly refuted. It was asserted that work on contract basis as was done by the respondent did not attract the provisions of Sections 2 (oo), 25 (F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was said that when the respondent's work was on the contract basis, he could not be said to have been retrenched. The stand of the "Corporation had been that it has statutory powers to make temporary and regular appointment under the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations 1960. The procedure for making regular appointment is entirely different to that of temporary appointment and the respondent is free to apply either to temporary or for regular appointment in the clerical cadre whenever there is vacancy, provided he fulfills the terms and conditions for the said appointment. The Annexure-1 with supporting vouchers and the respondent's applications stating therein that he has done clerical work on contractual basis were also filed. The petitioner-respondent filed rejoinder-affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit mainly the allegations of the writ petition were reiterated. It was also submitted that the Corporation has no power under its (Staff) Regulations to keep a person on contract basis. The writ petition was heard by learned Single Judge of this Court. He has been pleased to allow the writ petition by judgment dated July 24, 1992- It is against this judgment, that this special appeal has been preferred.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;