ARUN MADAN, J. - (1.) SINCE identical questions of law have been raised by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and since they have been heard together, they are being disposed of finally by this single common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/1989 titled Chainsingh v. R.S.R.T.C. treating it as the main case.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition was initially appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Conductor in Dungarpur Depot of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The respondent -corporation is a statutory body and being creature of the statute is obviously covered within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is discharging its duties as an instrumentality of the State. The grievance which has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition as well as by others in the connected writ petitions is: (a) as to whether petitioners who were appointed on daily wage basis by the respondent -corporation are justified in raising a genuine and bonafide demand earlier before the corporation and now before this court in respect of their reinstatement and regularization in services consequent upon their unlawful termination/retrenchment from services of the corporation on the principle of 'last come first go' as enshrined in Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act) burden of which is heavily on the employer which has to be discharged by him in accordance with law unless there is a specific agreement in writing duly executed between the parties or on the basis of the appointment order itself justifying such termination or retrenchment of the workman on the justifiable grounds subject to reasons to be recorded? (b) whether in absence of issuance of seniority list of the conductors working in different Depots of the corporation in Rajasthan, the corporation was justified in terminating their services by declaring them as surplus employees instead of preparing depotwise seniority list for the purposes of extending promotional benefits to the petitioners on the next higher grade, i.e., Asstt. Traffic Inspectors and above? (c) Whether the Corporation was justified in not following the ratio of the decisions of this court in D.B.C.W. Petition No. 2369/87 -Ramuram v. Asstt. Engineer P.W.D., Sub Division, Sikar and Anr. and No. 1661/88 Pooran Mal v. Asstt. Engineer P.W.D. Sub Division Sikar and Ors. decided by a single common order dated 17.1.1989 wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the case of daily wagers came to the conclusion that they cannot be retrenched or thrown away by an instrumentality of the State once they have been appointed in service and a person appointed on daily wage basis is equally a civil servant and cannot be thrown away out of the employment without any reason particularly when Article 21 of the Constitution should come to their aid and rescue, their livelihood being at stake and hence can be applied for the welfare of such persons? Learned Division Bench of this court in the afore -said writ petition taking note of the ratio of other decisions of the Apex Court including the case of Bandhuva Mukti Morcha v. Union of India : [1984]2SCR67 where their lordships held that Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity free from exploitation and the State is under a Constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental rights of any person particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him; their Lordships were of the view that the Labour Laws enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of securing the workman a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the directive principles of State policy, the Apex Court directed that the government is bound to ensure the implementation of the various social, welfare and labour laws enacted by the Parliament? (d) Whether it is not enjoined upon the court to discharge its duties in compliance with various constitutional provisions as well as the rights conferred on an employee by virtue of social, welfare legislation, i.e. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 to examine the administrative actions of the employees representing various corporate bodies who are heading and running various instrumentalities of the State i.e. R.S.R.T.C. on the principle of accountability in the event of violation of any of the Rules which they are bound to follow and obey in the realm of administrative activity in their day to day actions reflected through various orders passed viz. a viz. their employees which affect their rights protected by various welfare legislations of the State? (e) Whether the Administrative functionaries of various State Instrumentalities e.g. the R.S.R.T.C. are not bound to ensure that their actions or decisions give effect to the policy of the welfare and they are bound by the legislative mandate as enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of India which stipulates as under: We, the people of india, having solemnly resolved to constitute India in to a sovereign sicialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; In our constituent assembly this twenty -sixth day of November, 1949, do heleby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitutin. (f) Whether the respondent -Corporation was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner and other similarly placed employees who were initially appointed as daily wager conductors and subsequently placed on probation for a period of one year which they had successfully completed and thereafter instead of regularizing their services in accordance with the rules having completed more than 240 days of service by giving them breaks in service at regular short intervals, had unlawfully terminated their services on the ground of having been declared as surplus employees of the corporation by declaring mass scale retrenchment of such employees and throwing them on the road by having resort to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(3.) IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/89 the petitioner discharged his duties as conductor to the Corporation for considerably long spell of time pursuant to his appointment on the said post vide order dated 18.06.1987 on daily wage basis @ Rs. 20/ - per day subject to the conditions as stipulated in the appointment order itself. From perusal of appointment order dated 18.6.1987 (Ex. 1), it is apparent that no time limit as regards the duration of service of the petitioner as daily wager has been specified by the corporation. Since the petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions as specified in the appointment order itself, he joined duties as conductor on daily wage basis w.e.f. 18.6.1987. His work performance was considered to be satisfactory and his case was recommended by the competent authority for being appointed on probation in the regular pay scale of Rs. 880 -1680 excluding usual allowances as admissible to him in accordance with the rules. The probation period of service was initially fixed for one year which is apparent from the order, dated 20.1.1988 vide (Ex. 2). Thereafter the petitioner continued to discharge his duties and successfully completed the probationary period as fixed in terms of the aforesaid order, and as such he became a regular employee of the corporation since his services were not dispensed with by the corporation during the period of probation and hence a lawful right to claim continuity and regularization in services of the corporation had legitimately come to be vested in him. However all of sudden vide impugned order, dated. 9.3.1989 his services were terminated by the competent authority on the ground that he had become a surplus employee of the corporation and hence in view of the policy decision of high powered committee he was no longer required to continue. This fact is borne out from the perusal of the termination order, dated 9.3.1989 itself from which it is apparent that since the corporation had made recruitments of conductors at mass scale for and in excess of the sanctioned strength, for which it had become necessary for the corporation to do short listing of the conductors and consequently it had no option but to retrench the service of those conductors who were appointed in the services of the corporation earlier in point of time so as to make room for other conductors, who had subsequently been recruited and appointed as daily wagers i.e., the new appointees who were to be accommodated by the corporation on the said posts and for which it started with the indiscriminate policy of mass scale retrenchments not warranted by any provisions of the Act or the Rules governing the same not only with a view to accommodate the fresh recruitees but also to safeguard its position as an instrumentality of the state with a view to cover up the wrong doings of its own functionaries who were responsible for taking such policy decision of mass scale retrenchments as a face saking device to accommodate the new appointees on the said posts. Hence this modus operandi was adopted by the corporation resulting in its arbitrary decision of affecting mass scale retrenchment of the petitioners which had given rise to the filing of the aforesaid writ petitions in this Court.;