UNION OF INDIA Vs. NIWAS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal, which was admitted on ground No. 2, which is said to be the substantial question of law. The said ground is formulated below :

(2.) Thus, the dispute in this appeal is whether the suit is cognizable by the civil court or whether the Industrial Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed and employed by the defendant-appellant as class IV employees (the date of appointment is not disclosed). Their services were, however, terminated after expiry of 30 days' notice in the year 1967, although they had put in more than 6 months continuous service as casual labours and temporary workmen and were selected for appointment in the grade of class IV. Their appointments as khalasis were made against posts duly sanctioned by the Railway Administration and those posts were not either abolished or retrenched. The sanction of the Railway Administration still exists. After appointment of the plaintiffs-respondents, many other persons were appointed some of whom are mentioned at the bottom of the plaint. Many persons who were appointed subsequently to the appointment of the plaintiffs are continuing in service, yet defendant Railway Administration terminated the services of the plaintiffs without following the principle of "last come first go". The order of termination is mala fide and unfair. The plaintiffs had a right to continue in service and to hold the posts, which is valuable right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The order of the plaintiffs' dismissal is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs have served the defendant for more than one year and prior to issue of notice for termination of service, the defendants have not paid any retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25F of the industrial Dispute Act nor notice is served upon the appropriate Government in the prescribed manner. The order of termination is contrary to para 151 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code Vol. I as also to para 152 of the said Code. After termination of the services of the plaintiffs the Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineer and the District Signal and Telecommunication Engineer Lucknow and other Officers of the Signal Department have made recruitment of khalasis.