- (1.) This petition was filed on 19.10.1989 by Nagar Parishad Karrtichari Union, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') on behalf of 24 employees designated as Safaiwala, working in the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. Names of these 24 employees, mentioned in Schedule 'A' appended with petition, are as under: 1. Kamla D/o Shri Ratan Lal 2. Vimla D/o Bansiram 3. Gita S/o Arjun 4. Geeta D/o Dhanraj 5. Punamchand s/o Shri Sultan 6. Budharam s/o Shri Sultan 7. Surender s/o Shri Hardas 8. Sarla D/o Shri Prakash 9. Leela D/o Shri Gabru 10. Narendra s/o Shri Hardas 11. Harish s/o Shri Nathuram 12. Pappu s/o Shri Hardas 13. Narma s/o Shri Sagji 14. Omprakash s/o Shri Mangilal 15. Pushpa D/o Bhaiyaram 16. Shanti D/o Sugnaram 17. Raju s/o Shri shyamlal 18. Nandkishore s/o Shri Ramdeen 19. Manakram s/o Shri Punaram 20. Sushila D/o Shri Banshiram 21. Harculish s/o Shri silram 22. Sharwan s/o Shri Chhotuji 23. Rameshwari D/o Bhanwarlal 24. Jagdish s/o Shri Messaram.
(2.) It is alleged that by oral order, services of all these persons were terminated on 6.10.1989. The fact of oral termination is not disputed. It is further alleged that the said 24 persons, the date of first appointment in respect of each one is mentioned in the Schedule 'A', which in each case is prior to 1980. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the services have been terminated without giving notice and without complying with conditions precedent for bringing about valid retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), more particularly stating, it is alleged that neither any notice as required under the provisions of Section 25F(a) of the Act of 1947 or salary in lieu of such notice was paid to the petitioners before termination was effected nor any retrenchment compensation was paid before effecting the termination. It is also alleged that at the time of termination all the 24 persons were working in the Air Force area of the town under the orders of the Municipal council.
(3.) A return has been filed. While it is admitted the services of said 24 persons were terminated by oral order, prelimanary objections have been raised about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Union is not entitled to maintain the writ petition on behalf of number of persons, particularly, because the Municipal Council disputes the actual period of their working under its employment and also challenges that since it raises disputed question of facts, the petition which seeks to enforce right under the Act of 1947, ought not to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution and the parties should be left to pelaus their remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.;