RAM DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners, who were appointed as Lay -Inseminators in the Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills), Punjab have challenged the letter, Annexure P/3. The petitioners were appointed vide letter dated 18.12.1989, copy Annexure P/1. Relevant part of the letter is reproduced as under : -

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners argued that after having been appointed vide letter Annexure P/1, they cannot now be asked to work without pay/incentive. The respondents have filed an affidavit of Dr. Subhash Chander, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, who has stated that no post of Lay - Inseminators has been kept under the Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) Phase -11 and that there is no provision of the work of Lay -Inseminator in Integrated Watershed Development Project, Phase II scheme which commenced with effect from 1999 -2000.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents has relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court. In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma etc. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, New Delhi and another, reported as . It has been held by the Supreme Court that the Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because of the Industry having closed down. In the case of Jaswant Singh and others etc, etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc., reported as , it has been held that the employees appointed by Beas Control Board or Beas Construction Board were not entitled to continuation after completion of the project.