BISHUNDEO MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE present letters patent appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24th December, 1998. passed by the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 2167 of 1995 whereby the learned writ court in view of the admitted facts that the appellants were daily wage employees and were not appointed, pursuant to any selection process or advertisement and as the project under which they were appointed had since been shelved on account of resources crunch, the respondents authorities had issued notice under section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment of daily wage employees and subsequent thereto, their services have been retrenched, did not interfere with their order of retrenchment.

(2.) THE short fact of the present case is that the appellants claim to have been appointed on various posts from 1984 to 1997 and were posted in Bettiah Circle of the Deoghar Zone. However, no appointment letter in support of the aforesaid contention had been brought on the record. As the aforesaid appointment was between 1984 to 1997, the appellants claim for regularisation of their services under certain schemes of the State Government as well as equal pay for equal work.

(3.) THEIR further case as per the counter -affidavit is that as the execution of the said project had since been shelved on account of resource crunch, the authorities issued notice under section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') for retrenchment of daily wages employees engaged in the said project. However, as the wages of the appellants including the retrenchment compensation had not been paid, as such, they were not retrenched at that time. Subsequently during the pendency of the writ application the order of retrenchment was issued after complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. These termination orders were also subsequently challenged in the writ application by filing an amendment petition.