UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petition by Umesh Chandra Pandey and six others connected writ petition no. 30483 of 1990 by Pradeep Shangloo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and others and Writ Petition No. 29177 of 1990 U. P. Rajya Khanj Vikas Nigam Karamchari Sangh v. U. P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigain have been filed by the employees of the corporation for relief that an order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders for retrenchment of the petitioners be quashed. Further relief of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners on their respective posts and a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary to the petitioners on the basis of equal pay for equal work be given. The petitioners of the leading writ petition were appointed on various dates in the year 1981 and 1982 on the post of Office Assistant, Challan Supervisor, Despatch Superviser Chowkidar and peon, respectively. The other petitioners of the connected writ petition were appointed as Trading Munshi (clerk) at the office of the respondent no. 2 at Allahabad. The third petition is on behalf of Union of employees. They had been receiving consolidated salary but were not made regular employees of the Corporation. They had been working with the Corporation for several years and, thus, have admittedly worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously. Admitted, the respondent no. 2 who are the State owned corporation have their offices at Lucknow, Jhansi, Obra, Chopan, Karvi (District Banda) Lalitpur, Dehradun. Kanpur etc. The respondents are engaged in mining and excavation ,of minor minerals, e.g. ganite mines, lime stones, silica mines etc.

(2.) THE petitioners of the leading writ petition admittedly had filed writ petition no. 15654 of 1990 claiming equal pay for equal work which was being paid to the permanent employees. THE said writ petition was filed on 10-7- 1990. THE petition could not be taken up after the service of the notice to the respondents. Curiously, the respondents, instead of giving the petitioners equal pay for equal work and grant of regularisation, issued termination orders of services of the employees by way of retrenchment by taking aid of the provisions of section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) THE counsel for the respondents urged that the alternative remedy as provided under the Act is a complete bar and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. THE respondents in their counter affidavit in paragraph 4 sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) pointed out that the U. P. State Minor Minerals Development Corporation Limited have various units which are engaged in independent work at different places. One unit is independent from other units of the corporation. THE different units of the corporation have regular staff and daily rated workers and workers on consolidated wages at different wages. THE respondents pointed out that all the non-regular employees of Lalapur, district Allahabad have been retrenched and there was no question of retaining any person junior to the petitioners at Allahabad. THE respondents admitted in paragraph 4 (g) that Lalapur unit of district Allahabad has been transferred to the joint-sector unit, with the Hepworth. THE respondents, thus, wanted to say that Lalapur silica sand minings unit of the corporation ceased to exist.