SANTOSH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inspite of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial -cum -Labour Court, New Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 422 and Mohan Lai v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd, AIR 1981 SC 1253 and the several decision of this Court following the same, the authorities concerned have failed to comply with the requirements of section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the Act), in discharging the daily -rated workmen from service and in consequence the State has to disburse large amounts by way of wages due to those workmen as the discharge from service in violation of section 25 -F of the Act is illegal and the employee concerned is deemed to be continuing in service.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a daily -rated Beldar in March 1984. According to her, she was discharging the duties of Assistant Store Keeper/Out -turn Clerk at different periods of time, She was discharged from service on July 31, 1987 without compliance to the requirements of section 25 -F of the Act. She has prayed for two reliefs in this writ petition, namely : (1) for a declaration that her discharge from service is illegal and that she should be deemed to be continuing in service and (2) that she is entitled to -pay equal to an Assistant Store Keeper/Out -turn Clerk as she had been discharging the duties of these posts during the period of her engagement.

(3.) Annexure R -l, statement, produced alongwith the affidavit -in -reply filed by the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Circle, H P. PWD., Solan, shows the number of days that the petitioner had worked in each month from March 1984 onwards until her discharge on July 31, 1987. The statement shows that during the period of 12 months prior to her discharge she had worked for a total 3 8 days and hence she is entitled to the benefits of section 25 -F of the Act In the affidavit -in -reply, a preliminary objection is taken that the remedy of the petitioner is to have recourse to the Industrial Tribunal for appropriate relief there by admitting that the petitioner is a workman and the employer is an industry. The petitioner had been working in the National Highway Division of the H. P. PWD. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Des Raj etc; v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC 1182, has held that the Irrigation Department of the Government is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It should, therefore, be held that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner in this case. The respondents have no case that the discharge of the petitioner from service was in compliance to the requirements of section 25 -F of the Act The only reply in regard to the petitioners case that her services were terminated without compliance to the requirement of section 25 -F, is that the termination was on account of non -availability of funds and that the discharge from service had been on the principle of last come first go.