ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been appointed as a Beldar in the Inspection Branch of Sub-Division No3 of SYL Canal Project, Ropar on 1.6.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.300-430. According to the petitioner, he worked in the said capacity from the date of his appointment till the first week of March, 1986 but his services were terminated. According to the petitioner, four other persons were appointed as Beldars in the same pay scale after his appointment and those persons have been continuing in service while the services of the petitioner were terminated. According to the petitioner, the action of termination of his services is unconstitutional and violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution and liable to be set aside. Therefore, he prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination and also issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat him as continuing in service from the date of order of termination.

(2.) The respondents filed a written statement. According to the respondents, the petitioner was employed as Beldar (work-charged) in Inspection Sub-Division No3 of S.Y.L. Canal Project, Kiratpur Sahib on 25.6.1985 and he worked upto 28.2.1986. The respondents however, denied that they appointed Surinder Singh, Kija Singh, Kaid Singh and Joginder Singh. However, they stated that one Hari Mohan is employed as Beldar (work-charged) in the Sub-Division and the services of the petitioner alongwith others came to an end on 28.2.1986 as the expiry of operational period of a sanctioned estimate against which the petitioner and others were employed. Therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner on 28.2.1986 was valid and does not require any interference by this Court. They further submitted that the employment was given to those people who approached the authorities on 10.3.1986, but the petitioner did not turn up for his further employment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is further stated that the office waited for the petitioner upto 10.3.1986 and then gave employment to Hari Mohan on 10.3.1986.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ-petitioner contended that he was not given any opportunity and offered re-employment and had he knew that the respondents have been offering employment to the retrenched employees, he would have certainly accepted the offer and having come to know that. Hari Mohan was re-employed on 10.3.1986, the petitioner filed the writ petition immediately on 27.3.1986, and therefore, the action of the respondents for not offering job to the petitioner to re-employ Hari Mohan on 103.1986 is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the petitioner should be given employment.