MAHENDRA BHUSHAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) AS common question of fact and law is involved in these three writ petitions it will be proper to deal with them together. The writ petitions are therefore being disposed of by a common order. The terms and conditions of the employees of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short, the Corporation) are governed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 (for short, the Regulations) framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Government of Rajasthan. The respondents published an advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika dated July 10, 1978 for the posts of Junior Assistant/Typists and apprentices. Ail the three petitioners applied for the said posts. They appeared for interview/test on Sunday, 10th September, 1978 at 11 a.m. in the Head Office of the Corporation at Surya Niwas C/18 Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur. As a result of the type test and the interview the petitioners were selected and appointed as apprentice/Junior Assistant on the fixed stipend of Rs. 300/ - p.m. initially for a period of three months and finally to be absorbed in regular scale of Rs. 270 -10 -350 -15 -425 with usual allowances on satisfactory completion of a suitable period of apprenticeship and on occurrence of clear vacancies, under the order Annexure 1 dated September 11,1978, issued by the Secretary of the Corporation. The names of the three petitioners Gyanchand, Gauri Shankar and Radha Krishan in the aforesaid order appear at Nos. 6. 20 and 27 respectively. Their terms were extended from time to time. The Assistant Secretary of the Corporation vide circular dated January 16, 1979 informed that a type test in English/ Hindi and a written test to adjudge proficiency in Accounts and drafting official correspondence will be held at the Head Office on Saturday, 10th February, 1979 at 10.00 a.m. All the apprentice/Junior Assistant/Typists selected in the first group in September, 1978 will be required to appear. The apprentices coming to attend the test from different branch offices (except Jaipur Branch) will be paid the travelling expenses at the minimum rate payable to a regular Junior Assistant/Typsits of the Corporation. On the basis of the above test, regularisation of apprentices will be considered. According to the petitioner Gyan Chand in Writ Petition No 725/1980, he appeared in the test on March 4, 1979 and as far as he is aware he did fairly well in these tests and his impression is that he must have qualified in these tests though the result thereof was never declared by the respondent Corporation. It may be stated that under the order Annexure -1 dated September 11, 1978, 33 candidates were appointed as Apprentices, Junior Assistant/Typists on the fixed stipend of Rs.300/ - p.m. Out of them, 21 had joined and under the order dated September 10, 1979, it was ordered that all the 21 apprentices whose names were specified there in were discontinued with immediate effect because their term had expired. There were agitations by the petitioners and others and under order dated September 11, 1979, i.e, next day of the discontinuance of the services, four persons, Sarva Shri Satya Narain Sharma, M.C.Jain, C.P. Pareek and Rakesh Kumar were again appointed on temporary basis w.e.f. September 21, 1979 for three months on the post of Junior Assistant/Typists on basic pay of Rs. 200 -440 with usual allowances and posted at the places mentioned in the order. The agitation continued and it was withdrawn on October 19, 1979 on the assurance of the management that cases of petitioners and others will be considered and necessary relief will be granted to them. The petitioner Gyan Chand was appointed as apprentice under order dated October 24, 1979 and was posted at Branch Office Bharatpur. The petitioner Gauri Shanker was appointed as Apprentice on the monthly stipend of Rs. 400/ - p.m. and was posted at the Head Office (F&R;). The petitioner Radha Krishna Sharma was appointed as apprentice for three months on the monthly stipend of Rs. 350/ - and attached with A.S. at Head Quarter.
(2.) AFTER re -appointment, the representations were made by the petitioners to the Secretary of the Corporation. They were re -appointed and joined their duties. The services of the petitioners were again terminated. The services of the petitioner Gyan Chand were terminated vide order dated March 5, 1980 on the ground that the relationship of Gyan Chand with the Corporation in terms of the order dated October 19, 1979 came to an end on January 18, 1980. He was no more required and he was, therefore, discontinued with immediate effect. Similarly, under order dated February 7, 1980, Shri Radha Krishan petitioner was informed that his relationship with the Corporation came to an end on January 18, 1980 and his stipend has been credited in his Bank account maintained in the Bank of Baroda, Udyog Bhawan Branch, Jaipur. In case of Gauri Shanker under order dated January 29, 1980, he was informed by the Dy. Manager of the Corporation that his term has already expired on December 16, 1979 and his services are no more required and he was informed that his relationship with the Corporation came to an end on December 16, 1979. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders informing them that there relationship with the Corporation has come to an end in this court on the ground that the Corporation is an industry and the petitioners are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act). Their services were terminated in contravention of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act. No notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation was given to them and each of the petitioners had worked with the Corporation for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of their termination; that the petitioners have been treated discriminately, firstly on September 10, 1979 and again in March 1980 when their services were terminated arbitrarily while other employees were regularised on the post of Junior Assistant/Typists that the termination of the petitioners is in contravention of Regulation 15 of the Regulations; the petitioners were in the employment of the Corporation as staff grade 'B' that the petitioners became permanent employees of the Corporation after the expiry of period of probation of six months as prescribed for class B staff. The petitioners are entitled for the regular pay scale as well as substantive status and appointment after successful completion of the period of probation. In the writ petitions Nos. 331/1980 and 332/1980 of Radha Krishan and Gauri Shanker respectively the order of termination has been challenged on the ground that the action of the Corporation is arbitrary and discriminatory and it offends provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the Corporation has treated the petitioners and others similarly situated differently and discriminately. It is also the case of the petitioners in these writ petitions that though described as apprentices/Typists on a stipend of Rs. 300/ - p.m. but the appointment of the petitioners was a regular appointment under the Regulations on probation.
(3.) THE Corporation in its reply has come out with the case that it is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It does not dispute the initial appointment of the petitioners as apprentices/Typists and subsequent extensions, but its case is that their services were not terminated as in fact the term of their apprenticeship had already expired and therefore their services were discontinued with immediate effect. According to the case of the Corporation it had no authority to appoint persons as apprentices, as the Apprentices Act, 1961 is not applicable to the appointment of the petitioners. it is also the case of the Corporation that it is not an industry and the petitioners are not workmen within the meaning of the ID Act. Any discrimination as alleged by the petitioners in the matter of appointment is denied and the case of the non -petitioners in that fresh appointments were only made as apprentices on fixed stipend judging the worth of each candidate and such appointment does not and cannot be termed as arbitrary or discriminatory. The Corporation has not come out with the case that in case it is held to be an industry under the provisions of ID Act, it had complied with the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act.;