J D BISWAS Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has been seeking to quash the termination of the petitioner being illegal, in contravention of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and also being contrary to the judgment dated 9.5.1997 by this Court in C.W. 2155/ 95.

(2.) It has been .the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working with the respondent, a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as casual worker from 26.7.1986 in various capacities against work of permanent nature; that in the year 1989, the petitioner was called for interview for the post of helper and was advised vide letter dated 3.12.1990 that his name has been empanelled in the select list of employees and his appointment as regular employee will be subject to the availability of vacancies during the validity period of the panel on terms and conditions related to the post; that on failure of the respondent to offer the petitioner regular job, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition being C.W.P. No. 2155/95 in this Court, praying inter alia, for appointment as regular employee in terms of Government of India's Circular dated 8.2.1982; that vide interim order dated 26.5.1995, the High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner for casual job during the pendency of the writ petition. Persuant to the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner worked as a casual commercial helper w.e.f. 21.2.1996 to 24.4.1997 i.e. for 397 days and from May, 1997 to 30.8.1997 i.e. for 84 days, both as Loader; that the High Court, vide its judgment dated 7.5.1997 in C.W. 2155/95 set aside the 1993-95 panel as arbitrary and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as casual worker in order to seniority till regular appointments are made; that sudenly, on 13.8.1997 the respondents orally asked the petitioner not to report for duty from 14.8.1997 and identity card was taken back. It is this order of termination of petitioner's service, which is questioned in the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondent vide affidavit in reply inter alia contended that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the petitioner has been alleging violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act since the jurisdiction would be with the Industrial Tribunal; that the petitioner was given casual engagement on daily-rated basis and thereafter continued in view of the interim orders of this Court in C.W. 2155/95 and other connected writ petitions. However, after final decision/ judgment in the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioner's service has been discontinued in view of the directions by which the respondent has been directed to firstly engage casuals from pre-existing 1990 panel according to seniority. Hence, all casuals, who were otherwise engaged, were discontinued to comply with the directions of the High Court, hence the petitioner cannot allege that the respondent has violated any law; that the issue of petitioner's employment and those similarly placed as the petitioner, has already been decided by this Court by the judgment dated 7.5.1997 in C.W. 4113/94 and C.W. 2155/95 filed by the present petitioner; that as per the judgment dated 7.5.1997, the petitioner and other persons from the pre-existing 1990 panel are to be given casual work in order of their seniority in the panel; that the petitioner had unsuccessfully carried the judgment and order dated 7.5.1997 passed in C.W. 4113/94 and C.W. 2155/ 95 with other connected matters, to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition Nos. 16392-16399/ 97.