- (1.) The appellants had filed six Civil Writ Petitions which have been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by a common judgment, dated April 18, 2001. The petitioners had made a prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the respondent-Corporation by which the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services had been rejected and the petitioners had further prayed that they should be granted regular pay scales on the basis of "equal pay for equal work". The petitioners claim that the respondent-Corporation grants loans to the industry. On default being committed in repayment of the loan, the Corporation is competent to take the control of the industrial unit/factory or any premises against whom the loan has been advanced. The properties are held as security for the loan. On taking control of the properties belonging to the industries/companies, the petitioners were employed as Chowkidars-cum-guard to safeguard the properties of the industrial concerns. The petitioners claim that they have been working as Chowkidars-cum-guards with the Corporation for a sufficiently long period continuously on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,050/- but no regular pay scales were given to them. They remain present at the premises round-the-clock on guard duty, thus, the Corporation takes duties from them for more than eight hours per day. It was also alleged that the Corporation takes over the properties of the defaulting loanee under the provisions of Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. This function is of permanent nature, therefore, the employment given to the appellants was also of a permanent nature. The Corporation in its reply denied the master and servant relationship with the appellants. It was pleaded that the Corporation does not pay the salaries or wages to these employees from its own funds, but the wages are debited to the accounts of the industrial units. It was never the function of the Corporation that any of the petitioners is taken on the rolls of the Corporation. In the appointment letter itself, it has been made clear that the employee will get a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,050/-. It was also made clear that the tenure of the employment would be for a period of one month or till the disposal of a particular unit which was taken over.
(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, the Learned Single Judge has held that no vested right has been created in the appellants so that they made claim regularisation of their services. It has also been held that the appointment of the appellants was not made by a Selection Committee. They were appointed purely to fill an arrangement because the Corporation was eager to deploy some Chowkidars to perform watch and ward duty so that the units which have been resumed by the Corporation under Section 29 may not be damaged. The Learned Single Judge also held that the appointment letters of the petitioners manifestly indicate that their appointments were clearly ad hoc and their services could be terminated at any time.
(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 18.4.2001, passed by the Learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred this appeal by filing the present LPA. At the time of motion hearing, the Court passed the following order on October 15, 2001 :- LPA No. 1946 of 2001 "Learned counsel contends, inter alia, that various terms and conditions of employment stipulated in the appointment letter Annexure P-1, especially those fixing pay in a pay-scale, for payment of allowances, liability to transfer at any place in the State of Punjab and admissibility of travelling expenses etc., would go to establish that the appellants were employed on regular establishment of the respondent-Corporation; and, that these terms and conditions would be distinguishable from those of the other employees, who were employed on daily wages, whose cases have been disposed of by the common impugned judgment. Admit CM No. 4365 of 2001 Stay would operate in favour of the appellants in the same terms as those in force during pendency of the writ petition.";