(1.) The petitioners, who are five in number, are stated to be daily wage employees of the 3rd respondent establishment, which is a printing press established under the 2nd respondent Society. In the writ petition, they are aggrieved by the alleged illegal termination from services, which they allege was not even communicated to them in writing. It is stated that, on 07.02.2017, the Secretary of the 3rd respondent institution intimated all the petitioners not to attend the job from 08.02.2017, and they were allegedly prevented from doing the work that they were continuously doing without any break for the last several years. The direction of the Secretary of the 3rd respondent is impugned, alleging the same to be a retrenchment for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to continue to engage the petitioners in their respective posts on daily wage basis, till regular hands are appointed by a due process of selection. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents not to engage any other person as daily wage workers in the place of the petitioners.
(2.) When the matter came up for admission, this Court had, by an interim order dated 08.03.2017, permitted the petitioners to continue in service as daily wage workers and also directed that no steps would be taken by the respondents to fill up the vacancies caused by termination of services of the petitioners. The said interim order continues to be in force, even today.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioners are all persons, who were appointed on daily wage basis and inasmuch as they do not have a right to continue in service, except if they are regularly appointed pursuant to a selection conducted in accordance with the recruitment rules prevailing in the organisation, the prayers in the writ petition cannot be granted.