R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) By this judgment I dispose of as many as 6 civil writ petitions - No. 6571 of 2000 (Bakhshish Singh and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation and others), 7470 of 1999 (Subhash Vaid and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation), 646 of 1999 (Suresh Kumar and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation), 19444 of 1998 (Bakhtaur Singh and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation), 3033 of 2000 (Ram Kumar v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation and another) and 4234 of 1999 (Ganga Parsad and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation), as in my opinion common question of law and fact is involved in all the writ petitions and for the sake of facts, I am taking the same from C.W.P. No. 6571 of 2000 titled Bakhshish Singh and others v/s. The Punjab Financial Corporation and others. The petitioners in all the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have made a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing those orders of the Corporation vide which it has rejected the case of the petitioners to regularise their services from the date of their appointments. The petitioners further prayed that they should be granted regular pay scale on the basis of equal pay for equal work and some directions be also given to the respondents to take 8 hours duty from them and to grant them compensatory holidays etc.
(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that the object of the Punjab Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) is to grant financial assistance to the industrial units and the individuals for running the transport as well as the small scale industries and in case the industries became sick or any loanee does not return the loan or commit default, the corporation is competent to take the control of the industrial unit/factory or any premises against whom the loan has been advanced and the industrial unit which is hypothecated to the Corporation, the Corporation take control thereof and put its own persons to guard the premises as Chowkidar so that there may not be any theft/waste/damage to the premises and then the Corporation makes the recovery of the loan by sale of the property. It is the common case of the petitioners that they are working as Chowkidar -cum -Guards on the various industrial units/factories situated at different places in the State of Punjab and that the said units have been taken control of by the Corporation by invoking the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act. Some of the petitioners are working since 1989. Some got the job in 1991 or 94 or 96 or 1997. In short, the petitioners allege that they are working as Chowkidar -cum -Guards with the Corporation for a sufficient long period continuously on the consolidated salary Rs. 1,050/ -, but no regular pay scale is being given to them. It is also the grouse of the petitioners that Manohar Lal and Ishwar have been appointed as Peon -cum -Chowkidar by the Corporation. Naresh has also been appointed as Chowkidar and all these persons are working in the head office. Manohar Lal and Ishwar are getting regular pay scale, while Naresh is not given the regular pay scale. The duties of Manohar Lal and Ishwar are similar as that of the petitioners and their duties are inter se changeable/transferable subject to the availability of the place. Their qualifications and nature of duty are the same. Therefore, they are also entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that they have been put against permanent posts and the workload of these posts is continuously increasing. Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the Corporation to keep the petitioners temporarily on these posts for indefinite period. Further it is alleged that the petitioners are working against the posts for the last 5 to 10 years and, therefore, they are entitled to be regularised. It was further pleaded by the petitioners that the premises where they have been deputed do not have the electricity connections. There is no arrangement of toilet, bath -rooms etc. They remain present at the premises around the clock to guard them. There is no alternative/substitute to the petitioners for making the arrangement of their food, bath and such other necessities of life. The Corporation takes duty from them for more than 8 hours per day. They have not been provided with emergency light, torch light, batteries, lamps etc. whereas they are entitled to these benefits since, according to the petitioners, the respondent is an industry. Some of the petitioners also filed writ petitions which were disposed of by giving direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners. But their representation has been rejected by the Managing Director in an illegal manner. Hence they have filed the present writ petitions with the prayer that they are entitled for regularisation of their services; they are entitled to the regular pay scale on the ground of equal pay for equal work and further they are entitled to other benefits.
(3.) The stand of the Corporation is taken from CWP No. 6571 of 2000 in which certain preliminary objections were taken and it was inter alia pleaded that admittedly the petitioners are daily wage/ad hoc workers, therefore, they cannot be kept at par with the regular Chowkidars of the Corporation and that the writ of the petitioners is not legally maintainable in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in, 1997(1) RSJ 445 :, 1998(2) RSJ 535. It was further pleaded by the respondent that the respondent - Corporation is engaged in the business of providing medium and long term loans to industrial undertakings. The loans are secured by keeping as security the properties of such loanees and their guarantors. In case of default in repayment of loan amount by the loanee, the Corporation takes over the property of such a loanee under the provisions of Ss. 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. To perform watch and ward duties in respect of the properties so acquired during the period they remain in the custody of the Corporation and Chowkidars are engaged on daily wages/ad hoc basis with a clear stipulation that their services are liable to be terminated with the disposal of the property taken over by way of sale or restoration of the same to the party concerned or otherwise in respect of which particular Chowkidar has been engaged. The wages paid to such Chowkidars by the Corporation are debited towards the accounts of the party concerned. There are no regular posts of Chowkidars for watch and ward duty with the respondent to absorb or accommodate on permanent basis the Chowkidars who are engaged on daily wage basis to perform watch and ward duties in respect of such properties and the requirement wholly depends upon the acquisition and disposal of such properties. The services of a Chowkidar are rendered as no longer required, the moment the property against which he has been engaged, is either sold or restored to the party concerned. Yet the Corporation keeping in view the ends of justice strictly ad -heres to the principles of "last come first go" while dispensing with the services of such Chowkidars. It was also pleaded by the respondent that there are no regular/permanent posts available with them to absorb/accommodate/adjust the daily wages/ad hoc Chowkidars. In these circumstances, question of regularisation of such Chowkidars does not arise. The petitioners cannot be equated with the regularly appointed Chowkidars as nature and quality of work done by them can never be said to be the same. The Chowkidars who are working on regular basis with the Corporation were found fit in all the prescribed criteria of selection i.e. education, experience, physical fitness, age etc. On the contrary, the job of the petitioners is to live in some cases in the hypothecated/resumed premises and to prevent pilferage of acquired property. They are not supposed to fulfil any prescribed criteria of selection laid down for regular Chowkidars of the Corporation. They are also not supposed to stand at the gate for 8 hours shift etc. The sole intention of the Corporation in engaging the petitioners is to prevent thefts in the resumed premises by placing them as temporary ad hoc Chowkidars. In these circumstances, the work performed by them is in no way at par with or same in nature and quality with that of the regularly appointed Chowkidars. It was further pleaded that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit under the Factories Act, 1948 as the petitioners are discharging their duties in the premises that are shut down/closed and no production activity is taking place there. There is no electricity, water, running machines, production activity, work shifts regular/ad hoc workers, muster rolls etc. By denying each and every allegation of the petitioners the respondent -Corporation has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.;