- (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing for the petitioner -appellant and Mr. A.K. Mehta counsel appearing for the respondents Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.1997 by which the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4058/96(R) wherein the petitioner -appellant prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services and to pay "Equal Pay for Equal Work", arrear and other benefits.
(2.) THE petitioners case, is that the ancestors of the petitioner were the raiyats in respect of the land in question, situated in village Sikni in Chandwa Police Station in the District of Palamau. The respondents Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited decided to start mining operation of coal from the land situated at village Sikni with the permission of the Central Government. The Corporation proposed to acquire the land in village Sikni for the purpose of starting mining operations and agreement to that effect was entered into between the Corporation and raiyats. The petitioners further case is that after permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the management, the union representatives and the Labour Department, which is commonly known as National Coal Wage Agreement -IV, and the employment was provided to the petitioner and other land loosers in 1990. The petitioner -appellant, therefore, claimed that he has been continuing in the employment on temporary basis which should not be regularised, learned Single Judge on the first date, when the case was listed for admission, dismissed the writ petition on 20.2.1997. The order reads as under : - - "Heard. This application is dismissed". At the very outset, we are of the view that the dismissal of writ petition in limine is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. It is worth to quote the observation of the Supreme Court made in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) AIR (SC) 688. Their lordship observed. "At the outset, we may say that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ought to have given reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. As stated in Fauja Singh v. Jaspal Kaur, (1996) 4 SCC 461, on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. The absence of reasons has deprived the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in Limine, it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief in support of the High Courts conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and exclodes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. It becomes, difficult for this court, in all such cases to remit the matters to the High Court inasmuch as by the time cases reach this Court, several years would have passed".
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is fit to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition on merit.;