- (1.) ALL these writ petitions involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) FOR the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions the facts given in the case of WAPCOS Karamchari Sangh, Bikaner vs. Union of India and others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1992) are taken into consideration. The petitioner Sangh by this writ petition had prayed that the persons shown in Schedule A may be ordered to be regularised and they may be declared as employees of the Union of India or they may be declared as the employees of the WAPCOS or in the alternative the employees of the State of Rajasthan. It is also prayed that the respondents may be restrained from dispensing with the services of the members of the petitioner Sangh and they may be directed to be absorbed by the respondent State of Rajasthan in the event of there being any dispensation of services of these persons. The respondents may also be directed to regularise these persons in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-2330/-from the date of appointment and they may be paid the difference of the amount with interest. It is also prayed that they may be provided the other facilities like leave, T. A. , D. A. , Medical Allowance, H. R. A. , City Compensatory Allowance and Desert Allowance etc. The petitioner is an Association of the employees who are at present working as Surveyors with the respondent No. 2 i. e. Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as 'the WAPCOS' ). The Association was constituted to espouse the common cause of its members and to raise their demands and to have collective bargaining with the concerned authorities. This writ petition has been filed with respect to its members whose details are mentioned in the annexed Schedule 'a'. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 WAPCOS is a Government of India undertaking and is functioning under the control of the Ministry of Water Resources and was set up to provide consultancy services for planning and development of water resources. This Company provides its services through its own personnel and through the pooled expertise available from the various reputed organisations of the Government of India and the State Government. It is alleged that looking to the nature of its set up and the fact that the entire finances are being made available by the Government of India and it enjoys control over it, thus, it is an agency or instrumentality of the Union of India and is, thus, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is alleged that WAPCOS is a wide expanding organisation of the Government of India and is registered with the International Organisations such as African Development Bank; Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa; Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development; Asian Development; Bank, Food and Agriculture Organisation; World Bank/international Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Fund for Agricultural Development; Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Organisation; World Health Organisation and West African Development Bank. It is alleged that the respondent WAPCOS is rendering the following kind of services : - i. Reconnaissance Surveys. ii. Pre-investment surveys and investigations. iii. Profeasility and Feasibility Studies. iv. Planning Studies and Project Reports. v. Master Plans and Regional Development Plans. vi. Market and Socio-economic Studies. vii. Environmental Studies. viii. Hydraulic and Engineering Studies. ix. Engineering Designs Preliminary and Detailed. x. Cost Estimation and Economic Analysis. xi. System Studies. xii. Project Evaluation and Appraisal. xiii. Preparation of Specifications. xiv. Construct Processing and Evaluation. xv. Construction, Planning and Scheduling. xvi. Construction, Supervision and Management. xvii. Turnkey Jobs in Selected Fields. xviii. Inspection and Quality Surveillance. xix. Training and Transfer of Technology. xx. Operation and Maintenance. xxi. Institutional Strengthening. xxii. Technical Assistance and Advisory Services. xxiii. Testing and Research. xxiv. Project Management and Accounting System. It is alleged that in view of the nature of the services being discharged by WAPCOS it is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1947' ). The services of WAPCOS have been requisitioned for the Rajasthan Canal i. e. Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (hereinafter referred to as "the I. G. N. P. " ). Prior to entrusting the task of Sarvey, research, micro-canalisation, designing and planning water course was carried on by the Irrigation Department through its agency. It is alleged that the Government of India as well as the Government of Rajasthan felt that conditions of unemployment in the country is very much and, therefore, they requisitioned the services of the technical hands, who are unemployed. It is alleged that the persons mentioned in Schedule A were working with this organisation i. e. WAPCOS for the last 3 years. It is alleged that this organisation issued an advertisement which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 26. 11. 1988 and invited applications from the persons who were holding the Degree in Engineering. As per the advertisement there were 120 posts and the job required to be performed" by them was to conduct the command area survey, finalising the alignment of water course, preparation of L Sections and estimation of quantities. This job was to be done for the Government of Rajasthan by this organisation and this organisation employed the services of all the persons for undertaking this work. It is alleged that the petitioner's members applied for the posts on the belief that the respondent No. 2 is an organisation of the Government of India and is of permanent nature. The members of the petitioner Association applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and came to be selected on various dates but their hopes were belied when they came across an office order dated 28. 10. 1989 id" which it was mentioned that they were appointed for fixed term. It was mentioned that the order appointment of the petitioner's members was only for a period of 6 months with effect from the date of joining. A copy of the order has been placed on the record as Annex. 3. Thereafter, another order was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 26. 5. 1990 and their service tenure was extended upto 9. 6. 1990 only on the same terms and conditions. Then again it was extended upto 9. 6. 1990 only on the same terms and conditions. Then again it was extended upto 31. 7. 1990. It is alleged that thereafter the services of the petitioner's members were further extended upto 31. 12. 1990. Then, it was further extended upto 31. 3. 1991 and likewise it was extended upto 30. 6. 1991 and thereafter from 1. 7. 1991 the major survey camps were closed down and the services of these persons were laid off. Therefore, in these circumstances the petitioner Association has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that this organisation is a Government of India undertaking and these incumbents have joined the services from 1988 onwards, therefore, their services may be regularised. Secondly, it was contended that if the organisation is closing its unit then the members of the petitioner should have been given the benefit of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. They have also prayed for equal pay for equal work. It is also contended that the members of the petitioner Association are the employees of the Government of Rajasthan by virtue of the Rajasthan Amendment in Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1947. It is also contended that Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been complied with in the present case. A number of cases were cited in support of the regularisation, which will be referred to hereinafter.
(3.) AS against this, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the respondent No. 2 i. e. WAPCOS is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the appointments in the present case were contractual ones and therefore, by virtue of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947 the laying off of the members of the petitioner ASsociation does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, these incumbents are not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F and Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. The preliminary objection, which has been raised by respondents that whether WAPCOS is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to be disposed of first. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the respondent No. 2 is a Government of India Undertaking and it has all pervasive control over it, therefore, it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in this connection he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others (1 ). ;