BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed in 1993 by five persons working under the Directorate of Extension Education at the Printing Press of respondent No. 1 Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. The undisputed facts which emerge from the material placed before the Court and the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner No. 1 Om Prakash is working as Binder with the respondent since 1984. The petitioner No. 2 Devilal Nagda is working as Printer since 1981. The petitioner No. 3 Satyanarayan is working as Compositor since 1983. The petitioner No. 4 Munnilal is working as Compositor since 1986 and Lal Chand is also working as Compositor since 1986. The grievance of the petitioners is that all the persons named in Annexure-1 totaling No. 7 including the petitioners are working continuously on different posts at the Printing Press at per hour wages and notwithstanding there being permanent posts they are not being considered for regularisation or permanent appointment which affects their fundamental rights under Article 14 of being treated fairly by the respondent which is a State agency and Article 21 affecting their right to life which includes right to dignified living, free from exploitation. The facts about long term working with effect from the respective dates on respective posts under the Directorate or Extension is not disputed. What has been pleaded by the respondents is that since initially activity of press was taken for the purpose of carrying out the printing material on no profit, no loss basis as self supporting project no permanent employment was envisaged. These persons were employed on contract basis in which wages were paid on the basis of per hour and this being the position the petitioners have no claim to seek regularisation or permanent appointment but they are free to compete in open market in the competition against the posts which have been created in 1990 and take their chances. This assurance given in the reply has also not been fulfilled. Until now no process of direct recruitment has been initiated at all because the State Govt. has not finally issued directions for filling posts. However another development to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken place that rightly, though belatedly, a Scheme for the purpose of regularising the services of the employees, who are working for long, was notified by the respondent University by appointing three Screening Committee by order dt. 14. 03. 2000, for the purpose of considering regularisation of services. In pursuance of that scheme some of the petitioners were called for screening by notice dt. 4/5 August, 2000. But it has remained dead letter, as nothing has turned out positively, so far by way of regularisation of services. These facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) IN the undisputed scenario noticed above, to the Court it appears, that it is a clear case of exploitation and practicing unfair labour practice by the respondent University, which undoubtedly is a State Agency to the detriment of the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution as freedom against arbitrariness and exploitation to be treated fairly by the State including all instrumentalities of State. It is true that no one has vested right to be appointed without ordinarily there being a participatory process by providing equal opportunity of employment in terms of Article 16 but it is equally true that if State Agency do act in violation of its duty to act fairly and without recruiting their requisite hands through proper procedure and decides to employ the workman on casual or adhoc basis on broad plea of financial constraints, for fairly long spell and then denying them the fair treatment in the matter of offering a fair condition of employment and by raising the plea of seeking employment through open market competition which itself has not chosen to resort to results in denial to its workmen an exploitation free employment. In the totality of circumstances we find that whether it is not a case of seeking employment through back-door entry, but it is a case of denying proper status to its workmen who have been continuously employed by the respondents against permanent nature of work, without giving them benefits of status of permanent employees and amounts to unfair labour practice of exploitation. In this connection it may not be out of place to draw attention to the provisions enacted by the Parliament in Industrial Disputes Act in its object to provide protection against exploitation and unfair labour practices. An `unfair labour practice' has been defined u/s. 2 (a) of that Act as such practices as specified in the 5th Schedule appended to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Vth Schedule which deals with unfair labour practice lists at item No. 10 it to be an unfair labour practice: "to employ workmen as `badlis', casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. " ;