SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28th April, 1996 as contained in Annexure -1 by which his service as daily wager has been terminated by. the Executive Engineer of Bihar State Scheduled Caste Co -operative Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation ').

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as would appear from the last two lines of the impugned order the service of the petitioner who was engaged on daily wages since 1.9.1987 has been terminated in view of order no. 71 contained in memo no. 702 dated 11.4.1996 issued by the head office of the Corporation. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order no. 71 dated 11.4.1996 was challenged by a set of similarly situated daily wage employees of the Corporation through a writ application bearing CWJC No. 9376 of 1996 (Nirmal Kumar and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors) which has been allowed by judgment and order dated 16.2.2001 and as a result similarly situated persons have been ordered to be reinstated in the employment of the Corporation on daily wages. On strength of aforesaid submission alone, according to learned counsel for the petitioner this writ application deserves to be allowed because petitioner must be treated in similar fashion as required by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is well settled in law that an employee engaged on daily wage has no right to continue in service if his services are not required by the employer. However, retrenchment of daily wagers must be made in accordance with statutory provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act such as section 25F and the equality clause as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this case, it appears from the impugned order, as was case of petitioners in CWJC No. 9376 of 1996, the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been complied with before passing the termination order but from the materials on record and also from the fact that similarly situated employees have been reinstated in service pursuant to judgment of this court in CWJC No. 9376 of 1996, it is clear that the respondent -Corporation is not paying any heed to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of retrenchment of daily wage employees. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 9376/1996 although the time for preferring LPA is 30 days only.