BHIKHABHAI B SOLANKI Vs. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.R.K.Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Mayank Vora for respondents - Sports Authority of India.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under : According to the petitioner, he had joined the service of the respondents on 8th January, 1990 on consolidated salary of Rs.270.00 for the said month. For the months of February, March, April and May, 1990 he was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.450.00 and thereafter, for the June to August, 1990 he was in all paid Rs.665/and for the months of September to December, 1990 he was paid an amount of Rs.774.00 per month. According to the petitioner, he worked with the respondent from 8th January, 1990 to 31st December, 1990 and in all he completed 358 days continuous service and his service has been terminated by the respondent without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without any justification on behalf of the respondent. He also submitted that he was working as Mess Boy from 11.00 a.m. till 10.00 p.m. daily. According to the petitioner, after his termination, the respondent has employed new hands through the Contractor and new employees have been engaged in place of the petitioner as Mess Boy and therefore, the order of termination is illegal. According to the petitioner, he has completed 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25[B] of the I.D.Act, 1947, even though, Section 25-F has not been followed by the respondent and even Section 25-H of the Act has not been followed by the respondent. Therefore, on this ground also, the termination is bad. According to the petitioner, he was working in the permanent post and the nature of work is also permanent and therefore, just to accommodate the other candidates, service of the petitioner has been terminated in arbitrary manner. It is therefore, case of the petitioner that action of the respondent is not fair, just and proper and hence, the present petition is filed to set aside the termination order and to grant him benefit of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and benefit of permanency.

(3.) This petition has been opposed by the respondent No.2 inter alia raising various contentions. The first contention raised is that the respondent is the society working as an agent of the Government of India with the main object of promoting and developing sports activities for the promotion of sports and improvement of standards of sports in the country and keeping with the sports policy of the Government of India, to encourage research in sports including training programmes etc. According to the respondent, it has come into existence at Gandhinagar only from 29th August, 1987 and main function of the respondent is to prepare and make available all the amenities for the development of sports in this complex and this preliminary process is still in the stage of infancy. The second contention raised by the respondents that the respondent society is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2[j] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, provisions of the said Act do not apply to the respondent and all the contentions raised by the petitioner have no relevance so far as the respondent is concerned. It is also contended that the petitioner has not raised an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2[k] of the I.D.Act and the petitioner having an alternative efficacious effective remedy to raise industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended that during the intervening period, that is to say till the complex is full developed, it is necessary to employ the workmen as and when necessary by way of stop gap arrangements and with that intention, the petitioner was employed by the respondents as and when necessary. The preliminary work being of casual nature, the petitioner is daily wager and he was not absorbed on permanent or can claim any such status. The respondent has also relied upon amended definition of "Industry" which excludes education or training institutions, social services and sovereign functions of the Government. Development of sports has been from the Memorandum of the society, has been taken as one of the functions of the Central Government. The averments made in para-8 of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent are relevant wherein it is stated that "it is however submitted that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager and it is also true that he was getting salary as stated in the petition. The petitioner was working as a daily wager performed his duty as a Mess Boy as and when required or assigned in any day of the month." According to the respondent, the petitioner has not been discriminated as alleged or otherwise. It is however stated that as per the Staff Inspection Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, has declared surplus staff in mess running by the present respondent and at present there is no vacancy and therefore, the petitioner can not claim services before respondent. A circular of the Government of India is also annexed as Annexure-A to the reply. The last contention raised by the respondent that this is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it involves disputed facts and therefoer, the present petition is required to be dismissed.