PWD EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is the Employee's Union while the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were the employees of the respondent No . 2 at one point of time. This Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 for 'exposing' their own cause in the matter of termination of their services, but the Union has also been joined, which, in my opinion, was neither necessary nor proper party. According to the principle of service jurisprudence only an employee we has some grievance regarding his service matter, can file the petition. However, if the employee concerned belongs to the category of "workmen" and the employer is an "industry" then the employees' Union can expose the cause of the employees, but it has to be taken through the redressal forum as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. However, as the petition is of the year 1984 and the concerned employees are also parties to this petition, I do not consider it to be necessary to go into this question any more.

(2.) The petitioners No. 2 and 3 were admittedly appointed as daily wagers in Ukai Dam Project. They worked there for about three years and thereafter their services came to be terminated. Earlier, a petition being Special Civil Application No. 3607 of 1982 has been filed before this Court by the petitioner No. 1 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the employees. Interim relief has also been prayed for in the said petition, but this Court has ultimately vacated the interim relief and it has been held that the respondents shall, while terminating the services of such class of employees, take care of the rule" last come first go".

(3.) In the reply to the Special Civil Application the respondents have come out with their case, to which the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder, that while terminating the service of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 the rules and the direction given by this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 3607/82 were followed and as such no grievence should have been made by the petitioners by filling this Special Civil Application. In the reply the respondent have further come out with the case that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were engaged on nominal muster roll and their service have been terminated on completion of particular work for which they were engaged.