MADAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner as per his case was engaged as Electrical Supervisor on work charge basis by Jaipur Development Authority (for short `the Authority' of JDA) (respondent) with effect from 1. 12. 1983. His work was discontinued after some time as it was a case of contractual appointment for a fixed period and he worked on the said post upto February, 1984. THEreafter in January, 1985 he was again engaged on muster roll basis and he worked as such for the period January, 1985, February, 1985, March, 1985 and May 1985 only. THEreafter he was time and again engaged by the respondent Authority for a few days as and when required. THEreafter on 27. 7. 1987 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer of the Authority, it was directed that the petitioner should not be engaged on muster roll basis as he has been working with the Authority for some time and from date of issuance of the aforesaid order, no functionary of the Authority shall henceforth be authorised to give appointment afresh to the petitioner or anyone else on muster roll basis and if it is done, the entire responsibility would be that of the individual official concerned and not of the Authority. A list of 34 such employees was issued in which the petitioner's name figures at serial No. 8.
(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING alone on 15. 9. 1987, the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month for a period of three months only and the said appointment same to an end with effect from the forenoon of 15. 12. 1987 when he was relieved as such vide Annexure-3. Thereafter on 25. 2. 1988 he was once again appointed for a period of six months for inspecting the road lights. The appointment was on contract basis again for a fixed duration as aforesaid. Since six months came to an end with effect from 25. 8. 1988, his service stood terminated. He was not allowed to work thereafter. The petitioner having gladly accepted the appointment though made from time to time and having raised an industrial dispute under the Act by way of Reference to the Labour Court, it is not open to him at this stage to take somersault on the plea that his services should have been regularised or that the temporary break in service was not permissible under the Rules. The law is well settled that once an industrial dispute is raised by the workman by invoking the relevant provisions of the Act, it is not open to such an employee to claim continuity of service since it is always open to the employer either to retain the employee or not and the principle that he had completed more than 240 days of service and therefore, his services ought to have been regularised, is not attracted to such matters. The law governing the employee is covered by the service jurisprudence is practically different than the principle applicable to the workman under the Act. From the perusal of the above appointment orders issued from time to time by the Authority, it is thus crystal clear that the appointment of the petitioner though made from time to time, was discontinued every time after the expiry of the respective period as he was engaged as and when he was required subject to exigency of services. It is also clear that by order dated 27. 7. 87 (Ann. 2) the Executive Engineer had issued a specific order that he should not be engaged on muster roll basis and in the event of any such appointment made contrary to the aforesaid Circular of the JDA, the Authority shall not be responsible in any manner whatsoever. Consequently, the appointment being on contractual basis for a fixed term automatically came to an end on the expiry of the respective period as aforesaid. According to the petitioner, it is a case of retrenchment b the Authority and not a contractual appointment as he had completed more than 240 days and his services could not be terminated though it has not been disputed that his appointment was of temporary in nature, yet he is entitled to be continued in services as it was a case of retrenchment as per Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act') since the requisite procedure had not been followed by the Authority, he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and also with backwages. His further contention is that the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman under Sec. 25-F of the Act has also been violated.
(3.) IN the relief clause, the petitioner sought directions to the following effect:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent JDA to allow to continue the petitioner to perform the duties as Junior Engineer/electrical Supervisor without any break or loss, (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent JDA to make the payment of wages with effect from 25. 8. 1988. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to make payment of arrears of salary on regular basis since his initial appointment. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent JDA to regularation the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer/electrical Supervisor. In reply to show cause notice, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner has got alternate remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, which having not been exhausted, the petitioner is not entitled to filed the instant writ petition. On merits, it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because it is an admitted position that in view of the order dated 25. 2. 88 (Ann. 4), the services of the petitioner stood terminated on the expiry of the contractual period of appointment with effect from 25. 8. 88 but he having neither challenged the said order nor the action of the respondent-Authority by which he was not allowed to work with effect from the said date, since his services having not been extended thereafter it being a contractual appointment for period of six months only, his services automatically came to an end after the expiry of the said period. ;