- (1.) The petitioners, in the above-noted writ application, have assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 21st July, 1997 and have prayed for the following relief(s):- "i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 21.7.97 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Master Craftsman with all consequential benefits. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 21.7.97 may kindly be declared as illegal and arbitrary because the impugned order has been passed as a measure revengeful attitude. iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioner. iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be allowed to the petitioner."
(2.) Briefly, the necessary material facts and particulars essential for adjudication of the controversy raised are : That the petitioner(s) was initially appointed as Master Craftsman vide order dated 5th May, 1979 till 23rd May, 1979 with the terms and conditions stipulated therein and was posted at CTC, Ladnun vide order dated 21st May, 1979. It is further the case of the petitioner(s) that an industrial dispute was raised alleging unfair labour practice and for not regularizing the services on the part of the non-petitioners. However, the claim was declined on the ground that the employees claiming benefit through 'Sangh' do not fall within the definition of 'workmen' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). It is further stated that the award was challenged by the 'Sangh', representing the petitioner and others, before the High Court whereupon the notices of the writ application were issued with an interim order but later on, on account of vacation of the interim order, the services were terminated. However, there is no material available on record, in support of the facts detailed out with reference to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and thereafter the services of the petitioner(s) were terminated vide order dated 21st July, 1997; allegedly since the petitioner(s) initiated proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The impugned order dated 21st July, 1997 has been assailed on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 as well as for non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. The petitioner(s) has also based the challenge for violation of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reason detailed out in the order of termination is on account of non-grant of aid. Further, the order of appointment specifically stipulated the terms and conditions to the effect that the petitioner(s) was to continue in employment till the Centre was receiving the aid from the State Government and from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation as well. The impugned action has also been questioned on the ground that the initial order of employment/engagement continued till 23th May, 1979, but the petitioner(s) was continued thereafter until the impugned order dated 21th July, 1997 terminating the services w.e.f. 24th July, 1997. Therefore, the respondent was obliged to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1947.
(3.) In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Corporation has filed its counter-affidavit.;