- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a store-keeper in the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Corporation') vide letter dated 7.6.1983. He became a permanent store-keeper in the said-Corporation with effect from 1.4.1985 services of all the employees of that wing in the Corporation where the petitioner was working were transferred to the various District Rural Development Agencies (herein-after called the 'DRDA') in the State of Haryana. The petitioner's services were placed at the disposal of D.R.D.A. Gurgaon. His services were terminated w.e.f. 5.12.1986 on the ground that he had become surplus at Gurgaon. It is this order (Copy Annexure P.13) of termination of his services that has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) In para 12 of the writ petition, it has been averred as under : "That the petitioner was appointed with respondent No. 1 vide his appointment letter dated 7.6.1983 (Annexure P-1) and then his services were transferred to respondent No. 3 with effect from 1.4.1985. There are many posts of Store-Keeper vacant in the offices of D.R.D.As in different districts. Respondent No. 3 cannot be permitted to dispense with the services of the petitioner who is a permanent employee and employ fresh hands through Employment Exchange against the said post of Store-keeper. In the offices of respondent No. 3 there is one post of Store-Keeper against which one Sh. Lal Singh, Clerk, has been given additional charge. More Sarda Rani, Dharam Pal, Manohar Lal, Kamal Singh and Satish all clerks who have been recruited from Employment Exchange and are ad hoc only. The services of these clerks are hardly 6 months to two years. They are temporary. The petitioner at least could have been accommodated against any of these posts instead of throwing him on the road. Especially when he has become overage." The reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Rural Development Agency, Gurgaon is as under : "Para 12 of the writ petition as alleged is incorrect and the same is denied. As submitted above that neither there was nor there is any sanctioned post of Store-Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 525-1950/-. As regards the posting of Sh. Lal Chand, Clerk, who has been given the additional charge of Store-Keeper, it is submitted that Sh. Lal Chand was promoted to the post of Clerk from the post of peon w.e.f. 19.2.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660/-. In this connection it is respectfully submitted that he is simply discharging the duties of Store-keeper apart from the duties of Diary, Despatch Clerk, which is his basic post. As regards the posting Smt. Sharda etc. it is respectfully submitted that these are all clerks in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the above mentioned averments submitted that there were/are many posts of Storekeeper lying vacant in the various other offices of D.R.D.A. in the State of Haryana and even if the post of Store-keeper had become surplus at Gurgaon the petitioner could have been adjusted in some other district in the office of D.R.D.A. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been admitted that against a post of Storekeeper in the office of respondent No. 3 Shri Lal Singh was doing the work in addition to his own duties as a clerk. It was also submitted that the petitioner could be offered a lower post of clerk for which the petitioner was qualified and against those posts ad hoc appointees were continuing. Learned counsel for the petitioner went on to submit that respondent D.R.D.A. is an Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the Act) and there is no denial of the fact that while terminating the services of the petitioner, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with.;