BAIDYANATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent-State. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 7.8.91 filed as Annexure-6 to the petition, thereby informing the petitioner regarding termination of their services on the ground of acute financial crisis. The order dated 7th August, 1991, Annexure-VI readis as follows :

(2.) It is the petitioner's pleaded case that he joined the respondent company, a Govt. of Nagaland Undertaking as a Sample Boy from the session 1975-76 as a seasonal worker but eventually by order dated 6.3.76, along with several other employees, he was also made a regular seasonal worker vide order dated 29.11.76, Annexure-I. The petitioner used to get his full salary during the crushing season and he was paid 50% of his salary as retaining wages for tha off season. The crushing season is from November to January every year The petitioner had put in almost 17 years of continuous service and was also given promotion to higher grades but by order dt. 7.8.91 Annexure-6 his services stood terminated, without any reason or rhyme. The petitioner submitted a representation, Annexure-7, which has not been attended to. It is the petitioner's case that even if it was a case of retrenchment u/s 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the conditions precedent for retrenching, a month's notice, has not been given nor the rule of last come first go, has been followed by the respondents. Learned counsel urged that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 532, dealing with a case under Contract Labour Regulation Abolition Act, 1970 observed :

(3.) In any view of the matter, the impugned order can not stand the scrutiny of law. In St. Anthony Public School Employees' Association Vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311, the Apex Court rejected the plea of financial burden. Having employed seasonal workers, a Govt. undertaking cannot and should not be allowed to shirk its legal responsibility of payment on the ground of financial crisis which at times its own undoing. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed, it is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service with all other consequential benefits, such as, salary, seniority, back wages etc., which must be paid to the petitoner, within two months of this order. The petition stands allowed with cost of counsel fee of Rs. 1,000/-.