KIRITKUMAR K RAWAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals, the appellants, original petitioners, have challenged the validity of a common judgment delivered in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3931 and 3667 of 2004 dated 21st July, 2004. In view of the said fact, at the request of the learned advocates, both the appeals have been heard together.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the said petitions, in a nutshell, are as under:- (1) The original petitioners were working under Bahucharaji Mataji Temple Trust, respondent No. 2 herein in different capacities like peons and watchmen. Respondent No. 2-Trust wanted to reorganize its activities and, therefore, it retrenched the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, by orders dated 23rd March, 2004 upon payment of retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). It was specifically stated in the retrenchment orders that the provisions of the ID Act were not applicable to the Trust, but for sake of abundant caution, the Trust had paid retrenchment compensation to the petitioners. The said orders were challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions, which have been rejected, and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioners have filed these appeals.

(3.) Learned advocate Shri Saurabh Mehta appearing for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.2-Trust is a 'state' within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India. As the Trust is a 'state' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, the petitions filed by the petitioners were maintainable and the petitioners should not have been retrenched from service. According to him, the Trust has made an effort to fill up the posts held by the petitioners by giving contracts to some other persons. In fact, the intention of the employer Trust was to relieve the petitioners from their posts and to appoint other persons under the guise of giving contract for the same work. He has drawn our attention to the advertisement issued by the Trust for inviting offers from persons interested in doing the work which the petitioners were doing and has submitted that such an action on the part of the Trust is not permissible in law.