STATE OF U P Vs. DEEP CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 22/02/2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4294 of 1993 by which he has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of services of the petitioners. The learned Judge further directed the opposite parties to reinstate the writ petitioners in service and consider the case of their regularisation. However, they shall not be entitled for back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows: According to the writ petitioners, who are five in number, they were employed as mate on 1/10/1989 in the Public Works Department, Allahabad. They were initially employed in Departmental Construction Unit, Public Works Department, Allahabad and were placed on temporary muster roll from October 10, 198 9/04/1991. They were subsequently transferred to Temporary Departmental Construction Unit (Road) in the Public Works Department, Allahabad. After their transfer, they were placed on permanent muster roll from 10/05/1991. However, when it was discovered that they have wrongly been placed on the permanent muster roll, their names were removed from the permanent muster roll and they were paid wages admissible to the temporary muster roll-employees with effect from November, 1991. The Resident Engineer vide order dated 23/05/1992 directed for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners for the period when their names were mentioned on permanent muster roll. The order dated 23/05/1992 was challenged by the petitioners by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21075 of 1992 in which an interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 23/05/1992. According to the writ petitioners, the Engineer-in-Chief issued an order dated 9/07/1991 directing his subordinate officers not to maintain continuity in employment of those employees who are engaged on daily wages after 1/01/1991. It is alleged by the writ petitioners that the Superintendent of Works Construction Division Unit vide letter dated 20/06/1992 informed the Superintendent of Works, Temporary Construction Division Unit (Road) World Bank Project that the writ petitioners were employed in May, 1991 whereupon the writ petitioners were not allowed to work. They approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4294 of 1993 giving rise to the present special appeal, with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the writ petitioners to continue in service and to treat them in continuous service and to pay their wages. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on the ground that the writ petitioners have worked continuously for more than 240 days in the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991 upto the date of their retrenchment and their retrenchment was in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act'), as neither one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment has been given to the writ petitioners nor they have been paid wages in lieu of the period of notice. They were also not paid the retrenchment compensation. In their reply, the respondents submitted before this Court that the writ petitioners were engaged only from May, 1991 and since their services were no longer required after 1/08/1992 no work was allocated to them. They further denied that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Act are applicable in the present case as the petitioners are not regular employees nor they were appointed on any post. They also claimed that the Public Works Department is not an industry, therefore, the provisions of the U.P. Act are not applicable.

(3.) The learned Judge by the impugned judgment and order found that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Act should have been followed and Section 6-N is at par with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), since the Apex Court in the case of Lal Mohd. and others v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 1999 SC 355 : 1999 (1) SCC 596 : 1999-I-LLJ-317, while interpreting Section 25-F of the Central Act has held that in case an order is passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Central Act, relationship of master and servant did not snap and the order of termination from service is void ab initio. While allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the writ petitioners in service. He further directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation. However, the writ petitioners were not held to be entitled for back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.