HARDAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the 53 petitioners were employed as Khalasis in the North Eastern Railway, their services were terminated by giving them fifteen days notice by the Divisional Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi, dated November 17, 1974, under rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I. The petitioners challenge the validity of that order by means of this petition on a number of grounds. During the pendency of the writ petition, the notice dated November 17, 1974, was cancelled and a fresh order was passed on December 1, 1974, terminating the petitioners services under rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code by giving them one month's notice. The petitioners got the petition amended and challenged the validity of the order dated December 1, 1974.

(2.) There is no dispute between the parties that initially the petitioners were employed as casual labourers (Khalasis) by the Inspector of Works, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. On completion of 4 to 6 months continuous service the petitioners were given by benefits of temporary railway servants. It is further admitted by the parties that on the date of termination of their service all the petitioners except petitioners Hardayal, Komal, Barhoo, Sitansu,Ramayan, Baliram, Mangla Singh and Bishwanath (Nos. 1,3,4,5,6,7,12 and 13) had completed one year's continuous service. Mahendroo, petitioner No. 11, left his service in May, 1974, and he could not complete one year's continuous service. There is further no dispute that the petitioners services have been terminated under rule 149 treating them temporary Railway servants. Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, contains provision for the termination of service of temporary railway servants. Clauses (1) to (5) to the Rule lay down provision for the termination of service and period of notice and payment of salary to the railway servants of various classes, namely, apprentices, gazetted servants, probationary officers etc. Clause (6) of the rule lays down that if the services of a temporary employee are terminated to whom provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are applicable, he would be entitled to notice or wages in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such a case the competent authority while exercising powers under rule 149 in terminating the services of a railway servant must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of notice and wages.

(3.) Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down conditions precedent necessary to be followed before services of an employee can be retrenched. According to it, services of a workman employed in any industry who may have been in continuous service for not less than one year shall not be retrenched unless the workman has been given a notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and he has further been paid compensation at the rate prescribed therein and a notice in the prescribed manner is served on the Appropriate Government. These three conditions prescribed under Section 25-F are conditions precedent for the exercise of power to retrench a workman.