SARJUG PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising in this writ application is whether the petitioner who was appointed as a temporary Tehsildar, is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) or not.

(2.) The first appointment of the petitioner was made by the order of the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Biharsharif dated 5.2.1977 in the Irrigation Department. Under the appointment the petitioner was allowed to work till 23.7.1977. He was again appointed on the same post by the same officer by his order dated 27.1.1979. His services were terminated this time on 31.1.1979 (sic). It may be mentioned that these appointments were made on purely temporary basis for the purpose of collection of irrigation fees from the cultivators to boost up the recovery target. The petitioner got yet another appointment along with two others by the order of the same officer dated 31-7-1979 (Annexure '3'). One of the stipulations made in this office order was that this appointment was made till the Selection Committee made regular appointment for the collection. This order was modified by another office order dated 11.9.1980 to this extent that the appointment of the petitioner was purely seasonal (Bilkul Samayik) and his services could be terminated without any prior information. Whereas the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order, Annexure '4' simply modified the appointment of the petitioner under the order Annexure '3' and that did not amount to any fresh appointment, the learned Advocate General on the other hand contended that Annexure '4' would amount to a fresh appointment of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the points with which we are confronted, this dispute is not at all relevant but at the same time we feel inclined to accept the contention that the order contained in Annexure '4' was in continuation of Annexure '3' and it simply purported to modify the term mentioned above. The petitioner continued in his service by virtue of this appointment until the impugned order dated 31.1.81 was passed by the Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 3).

(3.) The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that it infringes the conditions laid down under Section 25F of the Act as neither any notice nor one month's wages in lieu thereof, was given to the petitioner.