- (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the termination of his service w.e.f. 5th July, 1989. He has prayed for issue of a declaration that termination of his service is illegal. He has also prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service and also give him benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
(2.) Petitioner's case is that he possesses academic qualification of M.A. and Post Graduate Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management. He was appointed on daily wages as Lower Division Clerk in the service of the respondent, Rajasthan State Sports Council. He has then stated that on 5th July, 1989 when he went for duty he was not allowed to mark attendance by an oral order of the Chief Accounts Officer and in this manner, his service was terminated. His claim is that he has completed 240 days of service immediately preceding the date of termination of his service. No notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation were given to the petitioner on the date of termination of his service. He made representation dated, 3.6.89 and then on 17.7.89. He also served a notice for demand of justice dated 24th July, 1989. Neither the representation nor the notice for demand of justice were responded by the respondents. Petitioner's assertion is that termination of his service is liable to be declared as void on account of violation of the provisions of section - 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have, in their reply, disputed the statement of the petitioner regarding his qualification on the ground that he has not placed any document in support of this assertion. They have further stated that his qualification is irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the writ petition. Respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he has no right to work. Respondents have denied the statement of the petitioner that his service was terminated on 5th July, 1989. According to them the Chief Accounts Officer has not terminated the service of the petitioner. Further case of the respondents is that as a daily wage employee there was no question of marking attendance. Respondents have also pleaded that there is no permanent post and the petitioner was not appointed on a post. Respondents have pleaded that the petitioner has not furnished any proof of his having completed 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, there is no question of violation of sections - 25F, G and H. Respondents have pleaded that no person junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Further plea of the respondents is that a more effective remedy is available to the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, this Court should not issue any writ in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition. Shri Pareek argued that the petitioner has completed 240 days of service before the date of termination of his service and since there has been a clear non-compliance of section - 25F (a) and (b), termination of service of the petitioner is liable to be declared as void. Shri Pareek argued that the denial made by the respondents about his having served for more that 240 days is absolutely unwarranted, because, as employer the respondents are in possession of the record of the work done by the petitioner and they ought to have produced the record of the petitioner's case to substantiate their case that the petitioner has not served for 240 days. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents to argue their case.
(3.) While the petitioner's case is very specific about the date of his appointment and the date of termination of his service as well as the nature of his employment, respondents have avoided giving of reply to (he averments made in the petition. A close look at their reply shows that respondents have admitted the factor of employment of the petitioner as a daily wage employee. They have however, not chosen to give dale of his appointment. Similarly, while they have denied the statement of the petitioner that his service has been terminated w.e.f. 5.7.87, they have not stated as to whether the petitioner has been continuing in service. It is also significant to notice that the petitioner made representations on 3.6.89 and 17.7.89 immediately after termination of his service. He also got a notice for demand of justice dated, 24,7.89 served on the respondents- The respondents kepi silence and did not even bother to give reply to the notice of demand of justice. More-over, being employer of the petitioner respondents are in possession of the record relating to the period for which the petitioner rendered his duty with the respondents. It was absolutely imperative that the respondents should have Candidly placed before the court record relating to the working of the petitioner. Their failure to do so is totally inexplicable. Conduct of the respondents in keeping silence on the representations and the notice for demand of justice served on behalf of the petitioner and their failure to produce relevant material before the court relating to the work of the petitioner even though the same is in their possession shows that the averments made in the reply do not reflect the correct position. By making bald and vague denials the respondents have made an attempt to show that a disputed question of fact arises for determination by this Court and that question should not be decided by this Court. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and conduct of the respondents 1 atn convinced that the dispute sought to be raised by the respondents is not a genuine dispute. They have deliberately concealed the relevant material/record from the record (court).;