- (1.) TULI , J This judgment will dispose of 217 Writ Petitions Nos. 4794, 4943, 4944, 5739, 5754, 5768, 5769, 5773, 5833, 5849 to 5857, 5866, 5899 to 5904, 5922, 5929 to 5932, 5934 to 5936, 5967, 6065 to 6078, 6080 to 6085, 6087 to 6092, 6121 to 6134, 6137, 6138, 6140 to 6141, 6173 to 6179, 6182 to 6190, 6193 to 6196. 6198, 6199, 6201 to 6203, 6205, 6206, 6308 to 6315, 6317 to 6324, 6326 to 6330, 6382 to 6385, 6418 to 6423, 6465a, 6484 to 6486, 6411 to 6492, 6495, 6496, 6498 to 6501, 6507, 6509 to 6512, 6514 to 6516, 6630, 6635, 6636, 6638 to 6642, 6644, 6685 to 6687, 6689, 6693, 6697 to 6699, 6701, 6703 to 6706, 6712, 6714 to 6716, 6718, 6719, 6739, 6743 to 6745, 6755, 6757 6758, 6900, 6902 to 6905, 6907 to 6914 and 6917 to 6919 of 1974 as common questions of law and fact are involved.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioners woe employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board, either temporary or substantive, and in pursuance of the call of the Union they went on strike with effect from April 25, 1974. They then went to Delhi to hold demonstrations in order to bring pressure on the management of the Board to concede their demands and to invite the intervention of the Central Government in the matter. In Delhi there was already in force an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting such demonstrations and assembly of more than five persons. The petitioners deliberately defied that order and thus committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. They were arrested and tried in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. They were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The strike was withdrawn on May 15, 1974, and the petitioners thereafter re-ported for duty, but they were not allowed to resume duty. On various dates the appointing authorities of the petitioners issued orders terminating their services under Regulation No. 13 (i) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) as adopted by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board ). One such order is as under :- "haryana STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OFFICE ORDER No. 124, dated 23-5-1974. Shri Parkash Chander S/o Shri Duni Chand, an employee of the Board, posted as Meter Reader of Division Office, absented himself from duty, went to Delhi and deliberately violated on May 4, 1974, a duly promulgated order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Magistrate, New Delhi, on May 4, 1974. He took out a procession along with the persons and raised slogans in spite of being warned that the prohibitory order under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code, was in force and continued disobeying the said order and were arrested and challaned. As such he along with other accused were prosecuted for an offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri Mohinder Paul, Metropolitan Magistrate, Parliament Street Courts at New Delhi, on 4-5-1974, and pleaded guilty to the charge and made a voluntary confession before the abovesaid Magistrate on the above date. The Court of Shri Mohinder Paul, Magistrate 1st Class, convicted him to an offence under Section 188. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo a simple imprisonment for 10 days vide his order dated May 4, 1974. His conduct in deliberately violating lawful order and showing flagrant disregard to the law, has led to his conviction on the abovesaid criminal charge, so in the circumstances of the case, I deem it proper that his services be terminated. I, therefore, hereby order the termination of the services of Shri Parkash Chander, Meter Reader, with immediate effect as per provision laid down in Regulation 13 (i) of the P. S. E. B. Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation 1965, as adopted by the H. S. E. B Sd/ S. E. 'op' Circle, Hissar," The orders passed in the cases of the petitioners by their appointing authorities are exactly in the same words so much so even the typographical errors are the same. The petitioners then filed these petitions for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the orders terminating their services and directing the respondents by a writ of mandamus to restore them to their posts and allow them all benefits like salary, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, increments, promotion etc. as if their services were not terminated. The Board has opposed these writ petitions on various grounds. A preliminary objection has been taken that the action of the Board, which is an incorporated autonomous body, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction in the matter of termination of services of its employees. On merits it is stated that the Board is an industrial establishment and also a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the 'act'), and that the strike was not lawful as a notice of strike by the Union in a public utility service is required to be given in form 'l' and no such notice was given by the Union. It is further stated that the Union had entered into a settlement with the Board on July 21, 1972, under which it had agreed not to adopt agitational approach and disturb industrial peace for a period of two years. In reply to the allegation that each punishing authority prescribed under the Service Regulations did not act on his own judgment, while passing the orders of termination of services of the petitioners, but such orders were passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Chairman of the Board, it has been stated in the written statement that every punishing authority independently applied his own mind and since every punishing authority wanted that the order should be in a legal form, he got into touch with the Law Department of the Board and obtained from it a draft of the order to enable him to pass a proper and correct order which may not suffer from any legal infirmity. That is why all the punishing athorities passed the orders in the same language. The allegation of mala fides and victimisation is stoutly denied. In the end it is submitted that an alternative remedy was open to the petitioners of having their dispute with the Board referred to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or to file a suit for damages in a Civil Court for wrongful termination of their services.
(3.) THE first point for determination is whether the petitioners had a right to file these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and whether this Court can make an order or direction for their reinstatement? There is no dispute that the Board is a statutory Corporation established under Section 5 of the Act and is 'the State' for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution as it falls within the category of 'other authority' mentioned in the definition of 'the State' in Article 12, but for no other purpose. Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply to the employees of this Board. The employees of the Board are, however, entitled to the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution and have the right to enforce the same. The learned counsel for the Board has relied on the following judgments :-1. Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244. 2. Indian Air Lines Corporation v. Sukhdev Rai, AIR 1971 SC 1828. 3. Jaswinder Singh Toor v. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 1972 SLR 198. 4. Mall Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1974 (2) Serv LWR 737. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, on the other hand, relied on the following judgments :- 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar, (1964) 5 SCR 528 = (AIR 1964 SC 847 ). 2. S. R. Tewnri v. District Board, Agra, (1964) 3 SCR 55 = (AIR 1964 SC 1680 ). 3. Calcutta Dock Labour Board v. Jaffar Imam, (1965) 3 SCR 453 = AIR 1966 SC 282. 4. Mafatlal Naraindas Barot v. Divisional Controller, S. T. C, (1966) 3 SCR 40 = AIR 1966 SC 1364. ;