Anjani Kumar, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -All these writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 8.11.1998, passed by U. P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") involving common questions of law and facts and therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR the purpose of giving facts in brief and with the consent of the parties the Writ Petition No. 43860 of 1998, has been taken as leading case. The respondent No. 2 Mishri Lal filed Claim Petition No. 338 of 1993, before the Tribunal claiming regularisation and wages as admissible to regularly employed persons of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "N.O.I.D.A."). Similar claim petitions were filed by other private respondents. The N.O.I.D.A. authority putting appearance, raised a preliminary objection that the claim petitions have been filed by the persons who are workmen under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "1947 Act") and also that they are not the employees of N.O.I.D.A. authority. They have been engaged by private contractors who are carrying out the work undertaken from N.O.I.D.A. authorities under various contracts and therefore, claim petition is not maintainable. The Tribunal has allowed all the claim petitions vide order impugned in these writ petitions holding that since the claimants are not enforcing any right under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the claim petition is maintainable. Proceeding further it has directed the petitioners to consider the respondents/claimants for regularization and also for payment of salary as is payable to the other regular employees of N.O.I.D.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), claim petitions were not maintainable and therefore the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. Sri I. R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents however supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that since the contesting respondents are working for a long period, even in equity, this Court should not interfere with the order impugned.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 1 of the Act provides short title, extent, commencement and application of the Act and sub-section (4) thereof reads as under : "(4) This section and Sections 2 and 6 shall apply in relation to all public servants while the remaining provisions shall not apply to the following classes of public servants, namely- (a) a member of a judicial service ; (b) an officer or servant of the High Court or of a court subordinate to the High Court ; (c) a member of the Secretariat staff of any House of the State Legislature ; (d) a member of the Staff of the State Public Service Commission ; (e) a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV 1947), or the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947) ; (f) a member of the staff of the Lok Ayukta ; (g) the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Members, Officers or other employees of the Tribunal." Section 2 contains various "definitions" and "public servant" is defined under Section 2 (b) which reads as under : "2 (b) "public servant" means every person in the service or pay of- (i) the State Government ; or (ii) a local authority not being a Cantonment Board ; or (iii) any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government (including any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty per cent of paid up share capital is held by the State Government) but does not include- (1) a person in the pay or service of any other company ; or (2) a member of the All India Services or other Central Services.";