G. M. LODHA J. - (1.) THESE thirty four writ petitions raises common questions of law and, I have therefore, accepted the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties to consider them, together.
(2.) ALL the petitioners have been given identical notices of the retrenchment under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 534/1983, Ganga Dhar vs. Union of India and others, this notice of retrenchment (Annexure 2) runs as under:- "western RAILWAY No. E/e/523/6 (AEN-SWM) D. M's Office Kota Date 15-2-1983 To: Shri Gangadhar S/o Johri Khallasi C/o PW I [s] GGS Sub: Notice of Retrenchment under Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1. Your Services are not required by the Railway Administration on and from 20. 3. 83 A. N. for the following reasons: "the work of maintenance of newly laid track from K. M. /067/14 to 1071/7 on Morail Bridge No. 356 between MMD-MMW has been completed. " The Work of T. S. R. in L Ru yard from KM 1085/65 to 1086/65 is also completed. 2. You are, therefore, served one month's notice of retrenchment from 20. 2. 83: Your services should stand terminated on and from 20. 3. 83 A. N. You should present your self in the office of PWI (S)GGC on 20. 3. 83 for receiving your dues. Sd/ -. . . . . . . . . . . Divisional Personnel Office Kota Sr. DPO KOTA 1. Shri Gangadhar S/o Johri Khallsi was asked to accept the one month notice given above, but he refused to accept in presence of the following - 1. Shri P. L. Sharma, AEN Inspection/bte Sd/- 2. Shri Gurucharan Singh PWI (S)GGC A BTE Sd/- 3. Shri Tirath Dass DSK BTE (TI) Sd/- The petitioner, Gangadhar, as well as other petitioners have made a common prayer like this- (a)to issue writ of certiorari and notice (Annexure-2)be quashed as the same being illegal, void and without jurisdiction: (b)to issue writ of prohibition restraining the respondents to give effect to the notice filed as Annexure 2. (c)to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to work according to law and pay all benefits which have accrued to the petitioners under the law: (d)to issue any other order, direction and/or declaration as may be found just and proper the facts and circumstances of the case for which the petitioner may be found entitled be granted to him; and (e)to award cost of this writ petition. " 3. The case of the petitioner, Gangadhar, is that he was appointed in the year 1972 and his services were continued. According to the petitioner, his services were broken in between many a times by creating artificial break so that the petitioner should not attain the temporary status. Gangadhar is working as khalasi since 1972 year. Shri S. D. Sharma, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions, submitted that the work in Railway is regular and continuous but only to create a artificial break in service they are transferred illegally from one place of working to another place, as has been done in the present cases. It was pointed out that the respondents are not maintaining the registers as required under the law nor issuing the service cards. Shri Sharma pointed out that the petitioners were engaged as Casual Labourers long before at Morail Bridge and the services were temporary as unskilled casual labourers at the Morail Bridge and as such they are performing the same type of work. It was then argued that the juniors to the petitioners are allowed to work under the same Permanent Way Inspector [pwi] either as Casual Labourers or as alleged Regular Class IV employees and as such the termination of the petitioner is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and violates the fundamental right of the petitioner as enumerated in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
(3.) SHRI Sharma then pointed out that, under the welfare state, the State is under obligation to provide the right to work under Article 41 of the Constitution of India. Once it has discharged its obligation by providing work to the petitioner then such action amounts to disregarding the constitutional obligation as enumerated in Article 41 of the Constitution of India read with Article 39. Then the State has no power under its welfare scheme to discharge an employee merely on the ground that he is temporary. There is no complaint against the petitioner of any kind except that he is allegedly temporary. Shri Sharma also argued that the respondents are neither recruiting the class IV employees according to rule nor maintaining the Register according to Rule nor issuing and recording the entry in service card as per rules. This conduct of respondents is designed to proliferate the corruption and also to exploit the innocent illiterate employees for years together and then throw them when they become over age for the purpose of attracting and collecting the fresh persons for subjecting them to the similar exploitation. This is illegal and against the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have averred that the petitioner, Gangadhar, left the job earlier on 20th March, 1976 and, thereafter he turned up only on 29th October, 1981 to work and he was engaged on Morail River Bridge Project with effect from 29th October, 1981. It was pointed out by Shri N. C. Choudhary, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that now the petitioners are being retrenched due to completion of the project work. ;