SUMER SINGH Vs. PANIPAT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sumer Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of the certiorari be issued and order Annexure P-2 dated 26th June, 1996 and order Annexure P-4 dated 29th August, 1996 be quashed and directions be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service on the post of Security Incharge by giving the benefit of continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Security Incharge in the pay scale of Rs. 300-790 in the Distillery Unit of Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter called the 'Sugar Mill'). He joined the post on 9.2.1990. He was drawing salary of Rs. 3068.28 in June, 1996. He had been working with the full satisfaction of the authorities. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Security Incharge. His duty was supervisory in nature in the Distillery Unit of the Sugar Mill. Therefore, he is not a workman within the meaning of the Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was also pleaded by the petitioner that his post which was sanctioned by the Board of Directors has never been abolished. Since he was performing supervisory work in the Sugar Mill where the work of Distillery Unit is going on, therefore, his services could not be terminated. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that the Government of Haryana introduced total prohibition in the State with effect from 1st July, 1996 vide which the manufacture of liquor was not made permissible. The management decided to retrench the service of the workmen by resorting to the provisions of Section 25(O) of the Act, as a result of which his services were terminated and this action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal.

(3.) In the short the case set up by the petitioner is that since he was not a workman within the meaning of Sections 2(S) of the Act; that the post was not abolished; that he was holding the supervisory post and that the activities of manufacture of liquor is still going on in the Distillery Unit, therefore, the impugned actions are illegal.