DEVENDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) CONSIDERING the similar question in Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra (supra) this Court also said :

(3.) THE above observations have to be considered in the context of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which is applicable to all kind of workman whether temporary, casual, ad hoc, regular etc. and make certain provisions for their welfare. In case of a daily wage employee if he has worked for certain period the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act provides that he cannot be disengaged or terminated if he has worked for a particular length of time in a year and so on. THErefore, the Industrial Disputes Act as such is applicable to all kind of workman provided they are the workman as defined under the said Act. THEre is no distinction in various provisions in reference to recruitment and conditions of service. THErefore, the observations made by Apex Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) in the context of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act would not apply in a case where the matter is covered by rule which specifically makes a distinction between rules of recruitment and rules relating to conditions of service.