- (1.) This judgment will dispose of 57 writ petitions bearing Nos. 4932, 5137, 5138. 5228, 5400. 5590. 5823 to 5831, 5874 to 5876, 5878, 5923 to 5925, 5927, 5928. 5960, 5962, 6136. 6139. 6191, 6200, 6407 to 6414. 6416. 6417 6483, 6494, 6508. 6633, 6634, 6637. 6690. 6691. 6694, 6708, 6710. 6740 to 6742. 6754, 6906 and 6916 of 1974. constituting one set and 28 writ petitions bearing Nos. 1554, 3206, 3303, 4113, 4268, 5832, 5869 to 5872, 5877, 6086, 6172, 6180, 6192, 6197. 6204, 6377, 6378, 6415. 6493, 6497. 6688. 6709, 6713, 6717, 6756 and 6759 of 1974, constituting the other set, as most of the points of fact and law are common to both the sets.
(2.) The petitioners in both the sets were temporary employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board). They went on strike on April 24, 1974. which was called off on May 15. 1974. One of the terms of their appointment was as under: "It should be clearly understood that this appointment is temporary and that your services will be terminable by one month's notice by the Board on one side and you on the other side or by depositing with the Board one month's pay plus allowances in lieu thereof. In case of misconduct of any description or unsatisfactory work, your services will be terminated without notice." Acting under this clause, the appointing Authority issued notice to each petitioner reading as under: "Please be informed that your servit ces are dispensed with with immediate effect in terms of your appointment. Since your whereabouts are not known and you are not available for receiving payment of one month's pay and allowances in lieu of one month notice and other dues payable to you under the law, so you may collect the amount which is lying in your account from the office of the X.En (OP) Division, Pehowa." This order was served on Kashmira Singh writ petitioner in this case and similar notices were served on the other petitioners of the first set. These petitioners have stated that after calling off the strike they reported for work on May 16, 1974 at their respective places of posting but respondent 3 did not permit them to join duty. They had been going to office daily but as they were not allowed to join duty, they sent registered letters to respondent 3 requesting him to allow the petitioners to join their duties but in spite of that letter no action was taken and the petitioners were not permitted to join their service after calling off the strike.
(3.) The case of the Board, on the other hand, is that these petitioners did not report for duty and remained absent. For this reason it was not possible to deliver the notices of discharge from service to them personally. The notices were sent to them at their home addresses supplied by them and it is not disputed by the petitioners that the address of the employee on each notice was correctly mentioned. Since there is a dispute on facts as to whether the petitioners reported for duty or not. it is not a fit case in which evidence should be recorded to decide that fact: In these circumstances, the petitioners may, if so advised take resort to any other remedy open to them.;