- (1.) THE petitioner, State of Rajasthan, by this writ petition has challenged the Award passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 1st July, 1985 (Ex. P/-3 ).
(2.) THE Secretary, Mazdoor Union, P. W. D. Jodhpur, respondent No. 1, has raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Department in the State of Rajasthan has referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal that whether the services of 14 persons of Mechanical Division, P. W. D. Jodhpur have been rightly and legally terminated by their employer, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, P. W. D. Jodhpur and if not for what relief they are entitled. These 14 persons were appointed by the Executive Engineer P. W. D. Jodhpur, by the order dated 11th October, 1979 vide Ex. P/-1, on purely ad hoc basis on the post of Helper Grade II and it was clearly mentioned that the appointments of these is for the famine operation and as soon as famine operation is over their appointments shall stand terminated without any notice. As soon as the famine operation was over the services of these 14 persons were terminated by the order dated 12th August, 1981 Ex. P/-2. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, after considering over the matter held that since these persons had completed 240 days and their services have not been terminated in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947) therefore the order of termination is bad and they are entitled to all back wages from the date of termination. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition challenging the Award of the Tribunal dated 1st July, 1985.
(3.) MR. Mehta, learned Deputy Government Advocate has raised three questions for my consideration. Firstly, that Famine Relief Operation does not fall in the definition of 'industry' therefore the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. Secondly, it has been submitted that it is a case of closure under Section 25fff, therefore, these labourers are not entitled to protection of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. Lastly he submitted that the appointment of these persons was for fixed term, therefore, they are not entitled to any benefit.;