- (1.) THESE five writ petitions raise common questions of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of each case are as follows: (1) Radheshyam's case: (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 907/87 ). It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as L. D. C. w. e. f. December 1, 1985, on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. Thereafter, he was again appointed as L. D. C. with effect from May 5, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/-per day and he was allowed to continue up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Again, he was appointed as L. D. C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annexure-2 dated January 30, 1987. He has, therefore, contended that he was continuously remained in service with effect from December 1, 1985 to October 6, 1986 without any break. (2) Vimlesh Sukhwal's case : (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 908/87) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as L. D. C. with effect from July 20, 1985 vide Order Annexure-1 dated July 29, 1985. No record has been produced to show that he was allowed to join on July 20, 1985. Thereafter, vide order Annexure-2 dated October 5, 1985, he was again appointed as L. D. C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day. It is alleged that no order of termination was made prior to this order. However, vide order Annexure 3 dated October 15, 1985, his services were brought to an end from the afternoon of October 15, 1985, but it is alleged that he was very much on work even after October 15, 1985. By order Annexure-4 dated May 14, 1986, he was again appointed as L. D. C. for a period of three months on daily wages basis with effect from May 5, 1986. It is alleged that after the expiry of three months his services were not terminated and he was allowed to continue till October 5, 1986. He was again appointed as L. D. C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 vide order Annexure-5 dated January 30, 1987. Thus, he has contended that he has continuously remained in service with effect from July 20, 1985 to October 5, 1986. (3) Heeralal's case: (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 913/1987) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Peon vide order Annexure-1 dated August 3, 1984 on daily wages basis @ Rs. 9/-per day and his services were brought to an end with effect from the afternoon of May 25, 1985 vide order Annexure-2, By order Annexure-3 dated May 27, 1985, he was again appointed on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 9/- per day and his services were brought to an end with effect from October 3, 1985 vide order Annexure-4 dated October 1, 1985. However, vide order Annexure-5 dated October 1, 1985 he was appointed as peon with effect from October 5, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from March 13, 1986. He has submitted that this order is not available with him and whenever he comes to lay his hands on it, it will be produced. While this appointment was there, another order dated May 14, 1986 was made appointing him as a L. D. C with effect from May 4, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. He has contended that the work has been taken from him and he has been paid wages right up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed as L. D. C. w. e. f. February 2, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annex.-7 dated January 30, 1987 and he continued up to February 28, 1987. (4) Rampal's case (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 912 of 1987) It has been contended that the petitioner was appointed as L. D. C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day vide order Anenxure-1 dated April 25, 1985 and his services were brought to an end vide order Annexure-3 dated August 1, 1985 with effect from the mid-day of July 30, 1985. However, by order dated August 3, 1985, he was again appointed on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day with effect from August 1, 1985. He has contended that though his services were terminated with effect from July 30, 1985 but he worked on July 30, 1985, July 31, 1985 and on August 1, 1985. According to him, his services were brought to an end vide order dated August 1, 1985 with effect from July 30, 1985 and he has been again appointed vide order August 3, 1985 with effect from August 1, 1985. Then the order dated October 1, 1985 came to be made purporting to bring to an end the services of the petitioner with effect from October 3, 1985 but an order dated October 5, 1985 was made once again appointing him, this time with effect from October 5, 1985. He has contended that though his services were brought to an end with effect from October 3, 1985, he was made to work till October 4, 1985. Thereafter, it is alleged that his services were terminated w. e. f. October 15, 1985 vide order Annexure-8. However he has again been appointed as L. D. C. with effect from May 5, 1986 vide order Annexure-9 dated May 14, 1986 and his services were brought to an end on August 5, 1986 and the work was taken from him and wages were paid right up to August 30, 1986. (5) Ramprasad's case: (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 911/1987) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as L. D. C. with effect from December, 7, 1985 on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. By order dated May 14, 1986, he was again appointed with effect from May 5, 1986 and he was allowed to continue till October 6, 1986. Thus, he has contended that he has remained continuously in service from December 7, 1985 to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, vide order dated January 30, 1987, he was appointed as L. D. C. on daily wage basis @ Rs. 15/- per day through Employment Exchange and his services were brought to an end on February 28, 1987.
(3.) HAVING stated these individual facts, it has been contended by the petitioners that their termination from service with effect from October 6, 1986 is against the provisions of Section 25f (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act' ). They have contended that they being clerks of the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act. According to them, their termination in the aforesaid manner is a case of retrenchment being effected within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. It was submitted that they immediately could not challenge their termination because of the lack of knowledge of law. The termination of their services is wholly arbitrary so as to be violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was contended that though the provision of Sub-section (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act are not attracted in this case but if they are attracted in the opinion of the Court, then they be declared ultra vires for the aforesaid reasons, because they are wholly arbitrary, unconscionable and unreasonable being violative of Articles 14 , 21 and 23 of the Constitution read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. They have also claimed equal pay for equal work in the relief. They have prayed for the following reliefs by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction: " (a) Directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service as Lower Division Clerks in the pay scale of L. D. C. (b) Directing the respondents to put the petitioners back in the service as if the aforesaid orders were never made and give them all consequential benefits thereto. (c) The respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners salary in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 (old) and revised to Rs. 880-1680 on and from the date from which the petitioners came in service after deducting whatever has been paid to them. (d) If for giving aforesaid reliefs, it be considered necessary the provisions of Sub-section (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act may be declared to be invalid and may be struck down. (e) The respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annun on the amount of which he stands deprived of. (f) The petitioners may also be awarded appropriate damages for the harassment caused to them on account of termination of their services without fulfilling the conditions laid down by the law. (g) Costs of the writ be awarded. ";