JOHN FERNANDEZ Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are seasonal workers working as Watchers under the respondents. The respondents are: (1) the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Alleppey and (2) the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D Trivandrum. The first petitioner was working as a Watcher from 6-2-1973 and the 2nd petitioner was working, according to the petition, from 6-12-1972 (This appears to be a mistake and the correct date of his entry is 18- 10-1973). The petitioners were retrenched as per Exts. P2 and P3. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The main contention raised by the petitioners in this case is that before 8-7-1975 when Exts. P2 and P3 orders were passed, they had to their credit 240 days continuous service as contemplated in S.25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and hence they could not be sent out except in compliance with the requirements laid down in S.25F of the Act. In Exts. P2 and P3, it is stated that the petitioners will be kept out of employment till vacancies arise. The petitioners have raised the plea that their juniors were kept in service when they were sent out and this action amounts to discrimination violative of Art.16(1) of the Constitution. I am not concerned about this aspect of the case in this writ petition

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the seasonal workers like the petitioners are engaged according to necessity of work, purely on casual basis and they were not continuously engaged throughout the year from the respective dates of their joining the service. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners are not workmen falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, that they were only engaged for works of a casual nature and that they were kept out when the work ceased. It is further stated that the petitioners have not worked for 240 days during the 12 months preceding 20-3-1973 as required by Ext. R1 G.O.