- (1.) IN this writ petition it is claimed that termination of the services of the petitioner by verbal order dated March 15, 1989 when he was not allowed to work any more is illegal and be auashed and set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service and that his services may be regularised.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner after undergoing Stenography and Typing Test was appointed as Stenographer in the Co-operative Cattle Feed Factory which is Unit of Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (for the brevity 'federation') on April 19, 1988 and he joined the duties on the same day. He continued to work in the aforesaid Organisation till June 21, 1988 on daily wage basis as is evident from certificate marked as Annexure-2. It is further submitted that petitioner was relieved from the aforesaid Unit of the Federation as per verbal instructions of the Director, Administration and was directed to join the Head Office of the Federation and accordingly he joined his duties there on June 22, 1988 in the Plants and Project Section of the Federation and submitted his joining report dated June 22, 1988 (Annexure-3 ). However verbal order was issued only on July 1, 1998 (Annex. 4) by which he was appointed purely on temporary basis on the post of Stenographer on consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of 59 days. From June 22, 1988 to July 6, 1988 during which the petitioner worked by verbal order of Director, Administration, he was paid his salaries at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day. The Director, Administration of the Federation vide order dated November 25/december 2, ,1988 (Annexure 5) extended the services of the petitioner and one another person to November 30, 1988. The petitioner made an application on December 3, 1988 (Annexure 6) praying that he may be continued in the job since his work and conduct has been found to be satisfactory. This application was sent through proper channel which was duly recommended by the General Manager, Administration. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner continued to work even after November 30, 1988 upto March 14, 1989 without any interruption, but he has not been paid salary from December 1, 1988 to March 14, 1989 though he has actually worked upto the above date and has even marked his attendance in the attendance register. Thereafter, he was not permitted by the General Manager (Production) to work in the office as per instructions of the Director, Administration.
(3.) IT is contended by Shri R. D. Rastogi, learned counsel that Respondent No. 1 is an industry within the meaning of provisions of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity, I. D. Act, 1947,) and the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. It is contended that petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in one year and his services were terminated by verbal order on March 15, 1989 in violation of Section 25 of the I. D. Act, 1947. No retrenchment compensation or any notice/notice pay was paid to him. It is also contended that as per knowledge of the petitioner 4 posts out of 7 posts of Stenographers are still lying vacant with the respondent, but in spite of that petitioner's services were arbitrarily and illegally terminated. It is also submitted that after the termination of the services of the petitioner, fresh appointments on the post of Stenographer have been made in violation of the relevant provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. It is also contended that petitioner was entitled to get regular salary of Stenographer whereas he was paid daily wages and thereafter consolidated salary. The work performed by him was same as performed by regularly appointed Stenographer, therefore, petitioner is entitled to get same salary on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and also regu-larisation of this service.;