- (1.) S. L. Saraf, J. Two writ petitions (i) Writ Petition No. 19087 of 1990 and (ii) Writ Petition No. 291 of 1991, were filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking relief for continuance of their ser vice. The first writ application was filed on 30-7-1990 seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction to commanding respondents and restraining the respondents in making new appointment at every 6 month to the post of Assistant knowing typing in the Branch office at Kanpur considering previous (petitioners) employees which amount to unfair labour practice under the law. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents not to discontinue or deny duty to the petitioners w. e. f. 1-8-90 till the regular appoint ment and the petitioner be considered for regular appointment to the post of "assistant knowing typing" if vacancy and post continues. " (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to pay the wages and other allowances and benefits admissible to other Regular Employees of the Assistant post. " The Court by an order dated llth September, 1990 was pleased to pass the following order: "issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that the respondents shall not discontinue or deny the duties to the petitioners with effect from 1-7-1990 for the post of Assistant knowing Typing till as regular appointment is made for the said post or till services of the petitioners are dispensed with in accordance with law. " The said order passed by the Court virtually granted the relief of prayer (ii) of the petition.
(2.) THERE was no interim order passed on the second writ application by this Hon'ble High Court. The case in the petition was that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were ap pointed temporary staff for a period of six months in the office of the respondents on and from 1-2-1990. Copy of the letter of appointment has been annexed as An-nexure-1 to the writ petition which reads as follows: "unit TRUST OF INDIa Gulab Bhawan, (Rear Block) 2nd Floor, 6, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi New Delhi. Ref. No. Ut/nd 89-90 9-2-90 OFFICE ORDER No. UT/nd 296/89-90 The undernoted candidates have been ap pointed in the service of the Trust as Assistant knowing Typing on purely temporary and ad hoc basis with effect from 1-2-90 and posted to departments as indicated against their names. SI. No. Name Posted to 1. Sh. Prabhat Agnihotri K. K. O. 2. Sh. Sandeepagarwal. " 3. Sh. Sunilprakashsachan " Sh. Abhay Saxena " They will be eligible for remuneration of Rs. 1883. 28 per month on pro rata basis. Their appointment will be only upto close of business on 28-2-90 and unless extended or terminated earlier will be deemed to have come to an end on the expiry of the aforesaid period. They will not be eligible for any other facility admissible to the regular staff of the trust nor will this temporary and ad hoc appointment confer on them any right to be considered for any post in the Trust. Their appointment will be subject to termina tion at any time without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. " Sd/-Illegible. " Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 1-3-1990 on the said post on the same terms and conditions. The aforesaid let ters of appointment were duly accepted by the petitioners. While the petitioners were in service five persons were appointed on the post of Assistant knowing Typing with effect from 2-7-1990. Services of the petitioners were terminated on the expiry of the period of six months. While in set-vice and apprehending the termination of service even before the period of six months, the petitioners moved the aforesaid first writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the respondents had not filled up the post by making regular appointment and the petitioners were entitled to continue in service unless regular selections of Assis tant knowing Typing are made by the respondents. Secondly, it is alleged that new incumbents have been appointed as Assistant knowing Typing on 2nd July, 1990. Thirdly, the respondents were in dulging in unfair labour practice and acted in violation of Sections 25- G, 25-H and 25-Tof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit in the aforesaid matter and have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. It is submitted that since disputed questions of fact were involved in the writ petition, the same was not main tainable and the petitioners should be directed to move the proper forum for adjudication. The respondents submitted that remedy lay in filing a suit in Civil Court. It was further contended that the right and obligation referred to in the writ petition was contractual in nature and the matter should be instituted before the Civil Court. Further, it was submitted that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis. The respon dents annexed to the said counter- affidavit the applications made by the petitioners for appointment as Assistant knowing Typing on temporary basis. The respon dents have also annexed the copy of the order passed on 9th February, 1990 which has been set out hereinabove.
(3.) AS per the said letter of appoint ment the petitioners were appointed only for stipulated period and unless extended the services of the petitioners were to be terminated on the expiry of the stipulated period. They were not eligible to any fac ility admissible to regular staff of the Trust. The petitioners in their rejoinder-affidavit have denied the receipt of the appointment letters of 9th February, 1990 or 20th March, 1990. It is alleged that only their signatures were taken on the back of their name on 20-5-1990. The petitioners have challenged Annexures-CA-6 and CA-7 in their rejoinder- affidavit and al leged the same to be false and fabricated papers. It was stated that CA-I and CA-IA annexed to the counter-affidavit were not legal and just. It is further averred that continuation in service of the petitioners after the expiry of stipulated period con ferred entitlement to continue on the post and the petitioners became permanent.;