- (1.) S. P. Srivastava J. The 77 petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2235 of 1997 claim to be working as Works Supervisors, Work Mates and Chaukidars in Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad having to their credit continuous service for the period of more than 12 years. It is not dis puted that the aforesaid petitioners had been engaged on daily wage basis but sub sequent to 8-7-1991, they were being paid in the time scale of pay admissible to the employees appointed on regular basis as against the sanctioned posts carrying the designation of the post held by the different petitioners. The chart annexed with the writ petition indicates that these petitioners had been engaged during the period elapsing between the year 1983 to the year 1987 on daily wage basis. It is asserted that the aforesaid petitioners have been functioning continuously up to 4-9-19%. However, the Chief Engineer of Ghaziabad Development Authority issued a direction that those work charged employees who had not taken part in the strike may be paid their salary.
(2.) THE petitioners claim that they had not taken part in the strike but still they were not being paid their salary. It has been asserted that in the year 1989, the State Government had taken a decision that all the employees working in the development authorities on daily wage basis who had to their credit three years continuous service with 240 actual working days up to llth Oc tober, 1989 be paid salary in the regular time scale of pay requiring all the develop ment authorities to send proposals for the creation of additional posts. The petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition have prayed for a direction requiring the respondent authorities to regularise their services as against the posts held by them and have further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners for the months of October and onwards regularly. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent development authority in opposition to the writ petition asserting that the petitioner had been engaged in work charge establishment due to necessity of work and they were only casual employees who were employed on daily wage basis to look after various construc tion of work undertaken by the respondent development authority who were to be dis engaged on the completion of the project. In the counter affidavit it has further been as serted that the petitioners were not working against any permanent vacancy or against any regular post and since at present there was no project or work in the office of the answering respondent where the petitioners could be engaged, their services have been dispensed with. The contesting respondents further assert that the petitioners have got no right to claim any appointment from the respondent employer nor they are entitled to seek con tinuance in the service. The allegations that the petitioners were disengaged on account of strike, have been denied. The reason for their disengagement disclosed in the counter affidavit is that there was no work available in any project. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court dated 14th July, 1995 rendered in Civil Ap peal No. 6481 of 1995 arising out of the S. L. P. (CC-2786/95) Ghaziabad Develop ment Authority and others v. Sri Vikram Chaudhary and others indicating that if there is no project available or there is no work, the employer authority is under no obligation to pay daily wages or to engage the daily wages. On the strength of the ob servation made in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it has been asserted that the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance of a seniority list and offer of engagement on daily wage basis as and when work is avail able to the. senior most person in order of seniority and according to the requirement of work. The answering employer asserts that the petitioners have got no right to claim any regular appointment.
(3.) THE petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein, it has been pointed out that at present there were many project, works or schemes either in full swing or in offing such as the project/scheme such as Vaishali Scheme, Govindpur Scheme, Prit Vihar Colony, Ananad Vihar Colony. Transport Nagar Bus Stand Scheme etc. requiring engagement of atleast 20,000 workers/employees. Recently it is claimed that Hapur-Pilkhuwa Scheme had been launched with an estimated cost of Rs. 176 crores It is also asserted that even the work charge employees who have been appointed in the year 1988-90 are being continued even though they have much less period of sen/ice to their credit as compared to the petitioners. Details of 108 persons have been furnished in the rejoinder af fidavit who are claimed to be junior to the petitioners but their services had not been dispensed with although they stand at par with them. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1886 of 1997 filed by Ghaziabad Vikas Prad-hikaran Employees Union through its Exe-x cutive Member which is claimed to be the registered union of class IV employees of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, it is claimed that the petitioners union had submitted a demand before the respondent employer that the muster role employees be paid salary according to the scheduled rate of Lok Nirman Vibhag and the services of all these employees be regularised who had completed three years service till 11-10-1989 with 240 days of ac tual working days in each year and several other demands. When no action was taken, the petitioners union resorted to a strike with effect from 19th August, 1996 and al though the respondent employer had as sured the petitioners that the demands will be accepted on the basis of the Government Orders and there will be no harassment of the employees in future the services of 700 employees were terminated. Although the strike was called off and the employees resumed their duties on 4th September, 1996 and respondent employer had assured that they will follow the Government Order relating to the work charged employees engaged on daily wage basis yet adopting a pick and choose method, without affording any opportunity to the employees, the ser vices of 700 employees were dispensed with even though they had been duly discharging their duties after the strike had been called of. These petitioners have prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the wages/salary to the work charged employees working in the Ghaziabad Development Authority for the months of October, November and December and in future whenever the same fall due.;