- (1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the separate but identical impugned orders (P-3 to P-10), all passed on the same day i.e. 29.2.1996 terminating the services of the petitioners. A further prayer is made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing their reinstatement on the posts of Security Guard.
(2.) The impugned order records that the respondent-Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation, Gurgaon ( for short HREC) has decided to privatize the entire security system and consequently the petitioners have been rendered surplus and that their services, therefore, are no longer required. In effecting the retrenchment there has been scrupulous compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The retrenchment compensation by way of cheques in different amounts as found due for each of the petitioners stand handed over to them along with the termination orders.
(3.) On notice, having been issued to the respondents the HREC put in appearance and filed its written statement. It has been stated therein that retrenchment has been effected in terms of the policy decision of the Board of Directors vide agenda item 28.10 (Annexure R-1) to privatize the security cover of the Corporation. The decision was taken due to eruption of many security lapses, thefts, pilferage of aluminum and other costly items at the hands of the old security system and this decision is stated to be more beneficial to the interest of the Corporation. An objection has also been taken that an alternative remedy is available under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Act and for this reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab,1983 2 SLR 769 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in HRDC v. Pawan Kumar,1993 6 SLR 288.;