- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Part-time Watchman at "Amar Singh Rathore's Chhatri (Memorial) on 1.11.89, against the vacant post fell due on the retirement of one Shanker Lal. He was appointed at the fixed salary of Rs. 50/- per month. The appointment of the petitioner was against a permanent and vacant post and the duties assigned to him were : to open the gates of the memorial at 10.00 a.m., close the same at 5.00 p.m., look-after the cleanness and safety of the memorial etc. He was, also, required to submit a Weekly Report with regard to the safety of the memorial. The appointment of the petitioner continued till the Office Order dated 12.2.92 was issued by the superintendent, Archaeology and Museum Department, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, by which one Hari Singh was transferred and posted as Memorial Attendant at the memorial of Amar Singh Rathore in the city of Nagaur. On the transfer and posting of Hari Singh, the petitioner was directed to hand-over the charge to Hari Singh. The case of the petitioner is that by this order dated 12.2.92, by which Hari Singh was appointed as Memorial Attendant and the petitioner was asked to hand-over the charge of the post of Memorial Attendant to him, the services of the petitioner appears to have been terminated. It is further the case of the petitioner that though he served with the department as Memorial Attendant but he was not paid even the part-time consolidated salary of Rs. 50/- per month only. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 12.2.92, by which the services of the petitioner are deemed to have been terminated, by filing this writ petition and prayed that as the petitioner has performed the same duties of the post of Memorial Attendant which are being performed by other regularly appointed Memorial Attendant, therefore, he is, also, entitled for the salary in the regular pay scale of the post of Memorial Attendant/Class IV Employee, which has not been paid to him. It has, also, been prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale of the post alongwith interest as the same was denied to him.
(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner served the Department since 1.11.89, and has served the Department for more than 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, he became a 'workman' and, therefore, his services could have been terminated only after following the procedure provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the petitioner was neither served with any notice nor was he paid the salary for the notice period nor was he paid even the retrenchment compensation, therefore, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set-aside as it has been passed in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the duties performed by the petitioner were the same as are being performed by the other regularly appointed Memorial Attendants, therefore, on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' the petitioner is entitled for the salary in the regular pay scale applicable to the post of Memorial Attendant/Class IV Employee. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the petitioner was not paid the part-time pay. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order terminating the service of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was a part- time worker and since Hari Singh was appointed as Memorial Attendant, the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end and no separate order was required to be passed and issued for terminating the services of the petitioner. Regarding the payment of salary of the post of Memorial Attendant, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the duties assigned to the petitioner were not the same as are being discharged by the regularly appointed Memorial Attendant and, therefore, the petitioner, is not entitled for the regular pay scale of the post in question. So far as payment of part-time salary to the petitioner is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the part-time allowance, which was payable to the petitioner, has already been paid to him and so far as payment of salary @ Rs. 250/- per month is concerned, that is not payable to him as the order has not been passed in this regard by the competent authority.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.;