DILLIP KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Samarendra Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, learned counsel for the opp. party no.3.

(2.) The case of the petitioners who are some of the second party-workmen in the Court below is that they were employed by the opp. party no.2- the Management of Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Bargarh since 28.07.2008 pursuant to the decision dated 17.07.2008 of the Appointment Committee of the opp. party no.2 with a consolidated pay of Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month as per their designation and work allotted. Their appointment was contingent as per the decision of the Committee for appointment. It is the specific case of the petitioners that during their functioning, there was change of management and the Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Bargarh remained as management in- charge of the bank since 25.10.2008. He took a decision to accept the service of one Shri B.C. Sethi, Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sambalpur Division as Secretary in charge of the bank though his joining report was not accepted by the Committee of the management. According to the petitioners, Sri B.C. Sethi, without having any authority, continued to work as Secretary in-charge of the bank and he was trying to blame the earlier management. To satisfy his grudge, he targeted the petitioners and other workmen by adopting illegal means, disengaged/terminated them from service by a decision dated 14.12.2008. According to the petitioners, their termination from service is illegal, unjustified and contravenes the provisions of section 25-F and 25-N of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is the case of the petitioners that the opp. party no.2 retained the services of some junior workmen violating section 25-G of the I.D. Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that they remained unemployed since their date of termination and leading a miserable life and they prayed to declare their retrenchment dated 14.12.2008 to be illegal and void with a further prayer to reinstate them in service and to direct the opposite party no.2 to pay back wages to them from the date of the illegal termination of service.

(3.) The opp. party no.2 Management filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the petitioners were not the workmen and since no industrial dispute existed between the parties, the case is not maintainable. It is further stated that one workmen namely Manjit Pradhan filed W.P.(C) No.19248 of 2008 before this Court relating to his termination with a further prayer for regularization of service. The Management admitted that due to shortage of staff, the Appointment Committee of the bank engaged the petitioners and other workmen as Junior Assistant/Assistant Supervisor and peon/night watchman on contingent basis with conditions that (i) their engagement is purely temporary; (ii) their engagement was with consolidated pay of Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/- for Junior Assistant and peon respectively; (iii) they cannot claim any service right in future and can be terminated at any time without assigning any previous notice. It is the case of the opp. party no.2 that engagement of the petitioners was against the OCS Act, 1962 and the instruction of the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Orissa, so also the ORV Act. The decision of the Appointment Committee dated 14.12.2008 was just and proper since no selection procedure was adopted and the provisions of ORV Act was not followed for the engagement of the petitioners. With such averments, the opp. party no.2 contended that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.