- (1.) Jagdish Singh and Gurbax Singh, Work Munishies have challenged the orders OWC/78447 and PWC/78449 dated 2.2.1989 (Annexures P2 and P3)passed by the respondent vide which the services of the petitioners were terminated.
(2.) As per case of the petitioners, Jagdish Singh petitioner was appointed as a Work Munshi on 24.4.1987 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Work Munshi on 6.4.1987 by the respondent. The petitioners were working for more than 240 days and were,thus, entitled to protection of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Thousands of workers were employed with the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Act applied to the respondent-Corporation on account of provisions of Section 25K of the Act. The petitioners were Matriculates and were, thus, eligible for the various posts available with the respondent-Corporation. Vide order dated 4.12.1987, Exhibit P1, the petitioners were served with a notice of termination of their services. The petitioners challenged the said order in Civil Writ petition No.4416 of 1988. A Division Bench on 15.12.1988 passed the following order :- " The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the Writ Petition be disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.W.P. No. 502 of 1988 (Adarsh Kumar v. The Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation) dated 16.5.1988. Accordingly, the order of termination of services of the petitioners would be considered as withdrawn because the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with and it will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs."
(3.) Despite the order passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4416 of 1988, the petitioners were not allowed to join duty and instead their services were terminated vide order dated 2.2.1989. The petitioners were given one month's pay in lieu of notice under Section 25F (a) of the Act. The Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation was not competent to pass the impugned order. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there are two chapters V-A and V-B. As per provisions of Section 25K of the Act, if more than one hundred workmen are working in the establishment, then the provisions of V-B apply to the workmen. The workmen could not be retrenched without payment of compensation under Section 25N. The impugned order is also void in view of Section 25G of the Act which enshrines law of "last come first go". Nirmal Singh and Harbans Singh, residents of village Dharam Garh who have been appointed as Work Munshi vide order dated 13.8.1987 have been retained whereas the services of the petitioners have been terminated. The order of termination is void on that count.;