- (1.) THE petitioner Rameshwar Lal Yadav who claims to have served as Chowkidar from 1st november 1980 to 10th May 1982 and from 2nd september 1985 to the date of retrenchment, has challenged his retrenchment mainly on the ground that his termination is in contravention of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial disputes Act. 1947 (for short the I. D. Act' ).
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar with effect from 16th november, 1984 and continued up to May 10, 1985 and by verbal order of respondent No. 2, secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chomu his services were terminated. He approached director, Rajasthan State Agriculture marketing Board resondent No. 1 and after some period he again came to be reinstated with effect from 2nd September, 1985 on the same post. But he was not paid salary of the intervening period. Again on May 29, 1986, his services were terminated by verbal order of the secretary, respondent No. 2 though he had completed 240 days within 12 months immediately preceding the termination of his services. His services could not be terminated without complying with Section 25-Fof the Act.
(3.) IT appears from the certificate (Annex. 1)dated 29th May. 1986. that the petitioner served respondent No. 2 as Chowkidar for the period of 16th November "1984 to 10th May J 985 and for the period 2nd September 1985 to 3rd May 1986 as per the case of the petitioner the provisions of the I. D. Act are applicable to his case and his services are said to have been terminated under the verbal orders of the Secretary Krishi Upai mandi Samiti, Chomu, respondent No. 2 on 29th may, 1986. From (Annex. 1) dated 29th May, 1986 it appears that the petitioner worked for the period from 16th November 1984 to 10th May 1985 and from September, 2, 1982 to 3rd May, 1986 and prima facie if the petitioner would have served till 9th May, 1986, then when (Annexure-was given to him by Secretary of Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Chomu, it should have been mentioned therein that the petitioner served from September 3, 1985 till the date of issue of certificate i. e. up to 29th May, 1986. That apart according to the petitioner, the removal of the petitioner comes under the ambit of retrenchment as per provisions of Section 2 (oo)of 1. D. Act. In my opinion, the remedy provided under the provisions of the I. D Act is more efficacious and in case of retrenchment under section 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act, the remedy provided in the I. D. Act must be first exhausted. I examined the question in Oswald S. Joseph v. RSRTC, Jaipur and others (S. B. C. W. P. No. 161/1985), which has been decided by me today the 30th June, 1986 I have taken a view therein that if the dispute is such which is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, it will be proper if the petitioner first resorts to the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the aforesaid case of Oswald S. Joseph v. RSRTC, jaipur reference has been made by me to the cases of the Surpreme Court as well as of this court including the case of Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Kesh Ram a Division bench of the Court which did not take into consideration the Law laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle rolling Mills (1964iillj105 ). In the aforesaid case of Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle rolling Mills, supra the Supreme Court confirmed the view of the High Court that the proper remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate their grievances in respect of the notices and circulars is to take recourse to Section 10 of the I. D. Act. In my opinion in a case to which provisions of the I. D. Act are applicable the petitioner should first exhaust the remedy provided therein. The dispute should be raised, conciliation proceedings take place. If there is a failure the State Government is required to make a reference under Section 10 of the I. D. Act to the Tribunal or the Judge labour court. In case it requires to make a reference to the Industrial tribunal or Judge Labour Court, the petitioner can come to this Court for writ of mandamus and if proper case can be made out, the court should and rather will issue a mandamus to the State government to make a reference. In my opinion, the writ petition in a case of I. D. Act will be applicable generally and should not be entertained directly. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed summarily.;