OM PARKASH Vs. THE PANIPAT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (for short the society) has two units - (i) the sugar mill and (ii) the distillery unit where potable liquors were manufactured. It is common case of the parties that both the units are independent and the employees in the two units are not inter- changeable and that the society maintains separate seniority lists of the employees in each unit. Petitioner claims that he was initially appointed as an Attendant in the Sugar Mill on 16.8.1973 and thereafter he was shifted to the Distillery Unit where he was appointed a Clerk Grade-III on 1.1.1975. Since the employees are not inter-changeable from one unit to the other, the petitioner was treated as a fresh appointee in the Distillery Unit with effect from 1.1.1975 and his seniority was accordingly determined. Respondent 2 was initially appointed in the Sugar Mill on 7.12.1964 and thereafter transferred to the Distillery Unit as a Clerk Grade-III on 16.7.1970. Respondent 3 was appointed a Clerk on 4.7.1972 in the Sugar Mill and later transferred to the Distillery Unit in the year 1976.

(2.) In view of the decision of the State Government to introduce prohibition in the State of Haryana with effect from 1.7.1996 the running of the Distillery Unit became impossible and the manufacture of potable liquors had to stop. The society decided to close down the said unit partially and terminate the services of some of the employees who were rendered surplus. In compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the society gave notices to the employees under section 25 of the said Act to terminate their services. The petitioner also received one such notice dated 22.6.1996. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner represented to the society that persons junior to him had been retained while his services were being terminated. It was pointed out that the principle of 'last come first go' was not adhered to and that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were being violated. The society did not respond favourably to the representation filed by the petitioner and in pursuance to the notice served earlier his services were terminated on 29.8.1996. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the same on the ground that it is in contravention of the principles of 'last come first go' and that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is senior to respondents 2 to 4 and yet his services are being terminated whereas those of the respondents have been retained. He has produced a copy of the seniority list prepared in the year 1992 wherein he is shown junior to respondents 2 and 3 and it is alleged that the seniority list has not been correctly prepared.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the society, it is not disputed that the services of respondents 2 to 4 have not been terminated. It is averred that respondents 2 and 3 are senior to the petitioner as per the seniority list which has been attached by the petitioner himself and that respondent 4 is an employees of the Sugar Mills with whom the petitioner has no concern.