SURJIT SINGH, J. - (1.)The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India has been filed for review of an undated order/judgment delivered in November, 1999 in O. A. No. 991 of 1999 by the State Administrative Tribunal (copy Annexure P-6) whereby the prayer of the petitioners for quashing their termination orders, dated March 6, 1999 has been rejected.
(2.)Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Hindi Typist on daily wage basis till the completion of the job of compilation of Freedom Fighter History Book, Part-II or a period of six months, whichever was earlier. Similarly, petitioner No.2 Narain Dass was appointed as Hindi Typist on December 11, 1997 vide order Annexure P-2 on daily wage basis, till the completion of the compilation of the aforesaid book or a period of six months, whichever was earlier. The two petitioners were, however, allowed to continue beyond the period of six months, without issuing any formal order of extension or fresh order of appointment and were paid the wages for the said extended period also. Vide order dated March 6, 1999 (Annexure P-6) their services were terminated, all of a sudden, though the job for which they had been appointed had still not been completed. They challenged their termination orders by filing O.A. No. 991 of 1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal. They alleged that they had worked for more than 240 days on daily wage basis, without any break, and therefore, their service could not have been terminated, without complying with the requirement of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides for the service of notice and payment of compensation.
(3.)The respondents, i.e. State of H.P. through Secretary, Language and Culture and the Director, Language and Culture contested the aforesaid O.A. and took the plea that the two petitioners had been appointed purely on temporary basis as daily waged typists and that late on, a decision was taken by the respondents to entrust the work of compilation of Freedom Fighter Part-II book to a scholar in the shape of a project, on payment of lumpsum and consequently the services of the two petitioners were terminated. It was denied that Section 25-F was attracted in the matter. It was specifically pleaded that the two petitioners were employed in department of Government, which was not an Industry and, as such, petitioners were not workmen. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition through the impugned order passed in November, 1999, copy Annexure P-6, holding that the activity for which the petitioners were employed was not covered by the definition of 'Industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence they were not workmen and so Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable in their case.