BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Termination of service of the petitioner brought about by a verbal order dated 1.5.1992 is the subject - matter of the challenge in this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wages as Mali-cum-Chowkidar by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Public Health) Division No.2, Yamunanagar, with effect from 3.10.1991. He continuously worked upto 1.5.1992. He was not allowed to come on duty with effect from 2.5.1992 and in this manner his service was terminated. Petitioner's assertion is that there is a standing practice in the respondent-department to appoint persons on daily wage basis without any appointment letter and terminate the service of such persons by verbal order. He has assailed the termination of service by alleging that respondent No.2 did not want the petitioner to complete 240 days of service and for this reason he did not allow the petitioner to come on duty with effect from 2.5.1992. The petitioner has also alleged that a large number of persons, named in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, who had been appointed after him and were junior to him in the category of daily waged employees, had been retained in service at the time of termination of his service. He has further alleged that some other persons were appointed after the termination of his service, but no notice as required under section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was given to him.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the first instance, the respondents have pleaded that the Public Health Department does not fall with the definition of term 'Industry' under Sec. 2(j) of the Act. It has been stated by the respondents that the activity of the department, namely, to provide facility of drinking water to the rural areas cannot be treated as an activity carried on with the co-operation of the employer and the employees so as to be treated as an industry. On the merits, of the allegations of the petitioner that his service has been terminated as a measure of retrenchment without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondents have pleaded that no record of causal labourers is maintained and as a matter of fact a person engaged on daily wages or muster-rolls does not have any locus standi to have his name included in the seniority list.