- (1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and order of Basak, J. , dated July 19,1974, whereby the rule obtained by the petitioners was made absolute. The petitioners were discharged from their services under the Railways by the following order: "no. W. 416/15/2 Calcutta, dated March 17, 1973. Bridge Inspector, eastern Railway. Howrah. Sub: Civil Rule 1557/m/70 High Court, Calcutta. In connection with the above, Assistant Registrar Calcutta high Court informed this office vide his Memo. No. 1633-D dated february 22,1973 that 'it is stated by Mr. Satyendra Nath Ganguli, Learned Advocate for the petitioners, that he has instructions not to press this Rule. The Rule is accordingly discharged'. Under the above circumstances the following staff, who were retained in service during the pendency of the case, are discharged on and from March 19, 1973 (A. N.)" ** ** **
(2.) THE petitioners claimed that they were in service under the bridge Inspector, Eastern Railway, Howrah, as fitters and welders or unskilled workers in the respective scales from September 18, 1969, on completion of 180 days of continuous service. There is now no dispute that the petitioners who joined firstly as casual workers worked for a period of 180 days continuously prior to September 18,1969 and they thereby acquired the status of temporary railway servants. The petitioners' case is that by the impugned order they were being retrenched from service without following the procedure laid down in Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. They accordingly moved this Court by an application under Art. 226 (1) of the Constitution praying for appropriate writs commanding the respondents to the rule, the Union of India and the Railway Administration to withdraw or rescind the impugned order. On this application a rule was issued on March 28, 1973, calling upon the said respondents to the rule to show cause as to why the writs prayed for should not be issued and other orders passed as may be deemed fit in the circumstances.
(3.) THE respondents contested the rule and filed an affidavit-in-opposition verified by Narayan Chandra Mukherjee affirmed on August 24, 1973. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows: "3. With reference to paragraph 1 of the petition I say that the petitioners were first recruited as casual workers by the railway Administration and on completion of 180 days service they were given the benefit of scale of pay and retained thereafter as per Honourable Court's order, without any sanction, as temporary Railways servant. " "4. As the petitioners served continuously more than 180 days they were paid salaries in the scale instead of daily rate. " Another affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents to the rule was filed, verified by Pritindra Mohan Saha, Bridge Inspector, affirmed on June 21, 1974 and it was stated in paragraph 3 (b) as follows: "3. (b) On completion of 180 days of service they were given the status of temporary Railway servant on specific sanction. The said sanction was from August 15, 1970 to September 14, 1970 which was further extended to October 15,1970. ";