GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were in service as tubewell operators in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department of the Punjab State. THE State took a decision to transfer all the tubewells in this branch to the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation), a company wholly owned and managed by the State of Punjab. Consequent on this decision, a notification was issued on 30/11/1982 to the effect that "the posts sanctioned for the Tubewell Circle, Irrigation Branch, Punjab, are no longer needed in the public interest." It was, therefore, ordered that all the permanent posts sanctioned for the above circle be abolished with effect from 1-3-1983 and that all temporary posts be discontinued with effect from the same date. A little earlier, on 31/08/1982, the petitioners were served with notices in terms of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'S. 25F') terminating their services with effect from 30th November, 1982. THEse notices were, however, set aside as not being in consonance with Cl. (c) of S. 25-F. THE State Government, therefore, issued fresh notices terminating the services of the petitioners with effect from 1/03/1983. THEse notices were also set aside by the High Court on the ground that they did not conform to the provisions of Cl. (b) of S. 25-F. THEreupon the State served fresh notices on the petitioners terminating their services in terms of S. 25-F with effect from 31/08/1983. THE appellants once again approached the High Court contending that the decision of the State Government transferring the tubewells to the Corporation and terminating their services was invalid. It was contended: (a) that the impugned notices did not fulfil the requirements of Cls. (b) and (c) of S. 25-F; (b) that the notification by which the tubewells were transferred was mala fide, the only object of the transfer being to frustrate certain claims of the petitioners which had been judicially recognised; and (c) that, in case the action of the State is upheld, the respondent Corporation should be held to be under an obligation to employ the petitioners with continuity of service and under the same terms and conditions- which they were enjoying prior to their retrenchment from the service of the State.

(2.) THESE contentions were rejected by the High Court. It held that the notices did not suffer from any defect. It was pointed out that the writ petitions had been filed before the expiry of the date from which the retrenchment notice was to be effective, namely, 31/08/1983. The retrenchment notice itself specifically mentioned that the retrenchment compensation, as admissible under the rules, will be paid before the notice of retrenchment took effect and that it could be collected personally from the respondent's Sub-Division/ Divisional Officers. At the instance of the Court, the State had filed an additional affidavit in which it was averred that drafts in respect of the amounts of compensation had been despatched to the Divisional Offices in the manner following: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_189_1_1991Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE High Court did not find any substance in this contention. It pointed out that the idea that eventually the tubewells belonging to the State should be transferred to the Corporation had germinated as early as in 1970. Though this was not implemented immediately, a decision to transfer the tubewells to the Corporation had been taken in the light of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha made in the year 1977-78, that is, about three years earlier to the decision of the High Court dated 5-2-1981 in C.W.P. No. 3340 of 1972 (reported in 1981 (1) Serv LR 512). THE authorities had placed before the Court the minutes of a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Punjab on 18/10/1973, wherein it had been decided that since irrigation from the State tubewells had not developed as expected and the State Government was running into a financial loss on account of the operation of these tubewells, the same be transferred to the Corporation. It had also been decided at the meeting that the Government would meet the loss that may be suffered by the Corporation on account of the operation and maintenance of these tubewells. In the light of these facts, the High Court held that there was no basis for the allegation of the petitioners that the impugned notification had been issued mala fide solely with a view to deprive the appellants of the benefits they had obtained from the Courts. It was pointed out by the High Court that the appellants had subsequently been given all the benefits which they had derived as a result of the writ petitions. That apart, it was also found that the Corporation had made an offer of re-employment to all the appellants effective from the date of expiry of the notice of their retrenchment by the State Government. All this showed, according to the learned Judges, that the sole object of the issuance of the notification was to get rid of the tubewells which were the cause of a constant and ever increasing loss to the State exchequer and not any mala fide or extraneous reasons.