- (1.) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in these two identical writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order. The dispute between the employer and the employees relates to the re-employment of the retrenched workmen under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE five petitioners Nahar Singh, Kaluram, Uma Kant, Ram Chandra and Hanuman Sahai were appointed as Conductors in Jaipur Region of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur on daily wages somewhere in 1986 or 1987. By orders Annexure-4 (filed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2860/88 and Annexure-3 (filed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2903/88) each dated 7th September, 1987, the Corporation terminated the services of the petitioners. It was stated in these two orders that when the occasions arose in future, they will be re-employed according to their seniority i. e. to say in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the services of many Conductors were terminated by these orders Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. Later on, Conductors who were junior to the petitioners were re-employed as Conductors by the Corporation and thus violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Such Conductors who were re-employed have been named in the writ petitions. They are Yogesh, Lala Ram, Chhitarmal, Babu Lal Rajpal and Behari Lal who were taken back in service by order dated January 5, 1988. The respondent R. S. R. T. C. gave no opportunity to the petitioners to offer themselves for re-employment. The relief claimed is that the petitioners be also appointed as Conductors in the R. S. R. T. C.
(3.) IN the returns filed by the respondents, all these facts have been admitted. The petitions are resisted or opposed on the grounds that the six persons, Yogesh, Lala Ram, Chhitarmal, Babulal, Rajpal and Behari Lal to whom re-employment was given by order dated December 31, 1987 are no more in service. Their services were terminated by the R. S. R. T. C. on April 26, 1988. Likewise services of Ram Awatar, Om Prakash, Virendra Kumar and Jagram were terminted by the same order dated April 26, 1988 and as such they are also no more in service. Abdul Gafiar did not join the duty. So far Kumar and Jagram were terminated by the same order dated 26th April, 1988. Khem Singh and Mustaq Ahmed are concerned, they filed civil suits challenging their termination of service and obtained stay orders from the civil courts to remain as Conductors. It was not denied by the respondents that the Conductors who were taken back in reemployment were junior to the petitioners. It was also not denied that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to offer themselves for reemployment.;