NAKLI RAM Vs. THE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of 8 writ petitions, in which there are 37 petitioners, details of which are given in Annexure 'A', since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 19409 of 1997, Shri Nakli Ram and others vs. The Haryana State Electricity Board and another, which has been filed by 13 ex employees of the respondent-Board.

(2.) The relief claimed in the present bunch of writ petitions is that the respondents should be directed to take the petitioners back in service in pursuance of the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP Nos. 12538 of 1994, 12718-721 of 1994, 14418 of 1994, 16919-921 of 1994, Mani Ram and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board decided on 27.02.1996 (Annexure P-1/A), Mani Ram and others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 1996 2 RSJ 95, which was upheld in SLP (C) No. 12773-81 of 1996 on 17.02.1997.

(3.) The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on work charge basis as team mates and Fitter etc. in the Hydel Project of the respondent-Board at Bhud Kalan, District Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Budh Kalan Project') and they worked from periods ranging from May, 1981 to January, 1983. In some cases, the appointments were made in November, 1979 and December, 1980 also, as per the details given in para no. 2 of the writ petition. The Board had taken a decision to retrench the services of the 62 workmen on the completion of the work for which they were employed and on 20.01.1983, the Executive Engineer of the said Project informed the workmen that there was less work and served one month's notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') informing that they were being relieved on 22.02.1983. That some of the employees, numbering 16 namely Mani Ram and others, served a demand notice and raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala vide Reference No. 139 of 1987. The Labour Court dismissed the said reference vide Award dated 30.12.1993, which led to the filing of the writ petitions mentioned in para no. 2 above, on the basis of which the petitioners are also seeking the necessary relief. The said writ petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court keeping in mind that the retrenchment compensation was not given on 20.02.1983 and on 25.02.1983 also, the management had written calling upon the workman to collect the same. It was accordingly held that the compliance of Section 25- F of the Act had not been done. The said decision was subject matter of challenge in SLP Nos. 12773-781 of 1996, which were dismissed on 17.02.1997 (Annexure P-2). Once the litigation finalized in favour of Mani Ram and others, as noticed above, the present writ petitioners woke up from their slumber and served legal notice dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure P-3) upon the respondent-Board for taking them back in service on the strength of decision in Mani Ram's case and connected matters on the ground that they were identically placed. It was mentioned in the legal notice that since the employees were similarly situated, they should be given the same benefit and they should not be compelled to approach this Court. Resultantly, the present writ petitions were filed.