- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K. C. Shukla for the petitioners and Shri G. D. Misra for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the oral termination order dated 10-2-2004 passed by the General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , Begrajpur, District Muzaffamagar (respondent No. 4 ). By the impugned order the respondent No. 4 has stopped the petitioners to work on the post of Computer Operator. The petitioners have further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb them in service and not to disturb their peaceful working on the post of Computer Operator. The third relief sought by the petitioners is that the respondents be commanded to appoint them on the post of Computer Operator or on any other suitable post in the Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , and treat them as regular/permanent employees and pay them regular salary with all other benefits as are admissible to the regular employees. The case of the petitioners is that the General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , Begrajpur, District Muzaffamagar appointed them in March 1999 and April 1999 respectively in his office as the Computer Operators. It is claimed by them that the salary of Computer Operator in minimum pay scale is not given to them. It is further claimed by them that they were appointed against permanent vacancy and that they have discharged their duties satisfactorily but their emoluments are paid to them as if they are appointed in contract basis. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of absorbing them in service, the respondents No. 4 has stopped and restrained them from working as Computer Operators which amounts to termination of their services by oral order.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the contract under which the petitioners have been working under respondent No. 4 is a sham contract and that the order of termination is oral which shows mala fide and arbitrariness in dispensing with the services of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the respondents in rebuttal has submitted that whether the contract is bona fide or sham has to be adjudicated upon. It is further submitted that admittedly the answering respondents had issued no appointment letter to the petitioners and they have been receiving their salary through contractor. He has placed reliance on paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit in which it has been categorically stated that the petitioners are not employees in Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , Muzaffarnagar; they were neither appointed nor paid salary by the Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , Muzaffarnagar; and no relationship of master and servant ever existed between the petitioners and the Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. , Muzaffarnagar. It has categorically been stated in the counter affidavit that there is factual dispute in the matter. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. , 2001 (91) F. L. R. 182 and another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 24-9-2001 in Lucknow Producers Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors. , (Civil Appeal Nos. 6752-6754 of 2001) @ S. L. P. (c) Nos. 8907-8909 of 2001, wherein it has been held that: - "leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is agreed by them that in view of the recent Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd, & Ors. etc. etc. v. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. etc. etc. JT 2001 (7) SC 268, the judgments passed by the High Court (by learned Single Judge and Division Bench) are to be set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. We make it clear that this order will not prevent the respondents from seeking such relief relating to their service as may be available to them under law. The appeals are allowed. No costs. SLP (C) Nos. 15072-15074 of 2001 We have heard Mr. R. B. Mehrotra, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners. In view of the order passed by us in Civil Appeal Nos. 6752-6754/2001 (@ S. L. P. (C) Nos. 8907-8909 of 2001, we do not feel any necessity to entertain these special leave petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. ";