R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) On the recommendation of Employment Exchanges, Rohtak and Jajjar, petitioner-Kailash Chander alongwith S/Shri Om Parkash, Devinder Singh and Ved Parkash were appointed as Malis (Class IV) in the time scale of Rs. 300-430/- plus usual allowances. The appointment order was issued on 31.3.1982 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Rohtak, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P/1. The terms of appointments mentioned in the appointment letter Annexure P/1 may be noticed:- (i) His services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons thereof. (ii) The post is purely temporary. (iii) Before joining duty he will be required to produce the following documents - (1) Medical Certificate of fitness for first entry into Govt. Service together with satisfactory evidence of having been vaccinated or revaccinated during the last three months. (2) Certificate to the effect that he has only one living wife. (3) Certificate of proof of the date of birth. His appointment is further subject to the conditions that his character and antecedents are verified and found satisfactory by the District Magistrate concerned."
(2.) The petitioner joined the post of Mali on 8.4.1982. However, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.4.1985. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the termination of his services on the ground that the termination was wholly illegal being violative of section 25-F(G) & (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court to whom the matter was referred for adjudication decided the case against the petitioner vide its Award dated 9.7.1990, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P/8 to the writ petition. This led the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
(3.) Before the Labour Court, the case put forth on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioner had been employed under a particular scheme known as Desert Development Project Scheme (in short D.D.P.) and on the termination of the scheme w.e.f. 31.3.1985, petitioner's services were terminated. It was also pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the Department of Agricultural where the petitioner was employed as a Mali was not an 'industry' and, therefore, the question of applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act did not arise.;