RAMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved by Ramesh Chander under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the Respondents' No. 1 to 3 to appoint him on daily wages and quash the appointments of Chhabila, Respondent No. 4 and Gaja Nand, Respondent No. 5 and for declaring his retrenchment as void.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Petitioner was appointed as daily wage worker in July, 1988 at Sub Division No. 3, Division No. 1, Public Health at Boisting Station Dhirana. He continued to work under the supervision of Respondents No. 2 and 3 till 30th November, 1990 with notional break. Before his retrenchment, he completed 240 days of continuous service. He was not allowed to work after 30th November, 1990 nor he was given retrenchment compensation. The Public Health Department, where the Petitioner worked, being an Industry, the Petitioner is a 'workman' and, as such, entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act). After his retrenchment, the Respondents -authorities have appointed other daily wage workers without complying with the provisions of the Act. Chhabila and Gaja Nand Respondents were also appointed as daily wage workers including others whose particulars are not known to the Petitioner. They as well as many others, who were appointed after the Petitioner's retrenchment, are fresh candidates. Chhabila and Gaja Nand were appointed on 1st January, 1991 and are continuing in service. While appointing them, no intimation was given to the Petitioner by any means including registered post as required under Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short, the Rules). The Respondents -authorities were bound to employ the Petitioner instead of Chhabila as well as Gaja Nand, being a retrenched employee. He was not given an opportunity while appointing Chhabila and Gaja Nand, though in view of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act, the Respondents -authorities were bound to appoint the Petitioner on daily wage in, preference to other persons who were retrenched employees. Dhoop Singh, Brahma Nand, Tul Bahadur and Jai Bhagwan were appointed in 1989 at Sub Division No. 3. They are still continuing in service while the Petitioner, who joined in July, 1988 has been thrown out from service in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioner being a retrenched employee is being ignored just to accommodate their favourites. The vacancies of daily vage workers are there which are being filled without complying with Rule 78 of the Rules. The main questions of law involved in this writ petition are as under:

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.