PARSURAM MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by 122 petitioners under Articles 26 and 227 of the Constitution of India for restraining the respondents from retrenching them as well as for holding that they are continuing in service and to pay them their wages. This application had been filed on 10.1.1978, but prior to it the petitioners had moved this Court by four writ applications (C. W. J. C. Nos. 320,321, 322 and 335 of 1976) for reliefs similar to the present application which were dismissed by a Bench of this Court presided over by Shambhu Prasad Singh and Lalit Mohan Sharma, JJ. on 4.11.1977.

(2.) In February, 1970 the Indian Railway Board sanctioned a proposal for doubling of Hatia-Muri Railway Track on the South Eastern Railway. Casual labours for the Project wore employed. The project was under charge of District Engineer, Bokaro Steel City, Ranchi Cell at Ranchi (respondent No. 2). There was also an Assistant Engineer for that Cell stationed at Ranchi. The project was divided into three blocks. Works started in 1970 itself and the last block section was completed and opened to traffic in September, 1976. The case of the petitioners is that they apprehended their illegal retrenchment in December, 1976 and, therefore, they moved this Court by four writ applications. C. W. 3. C. No. 320 of 1976 was filed on 14.12.1976 against the apprehended retrenchment. This application was listed for admission on 15.12.1976. On that date the rule was issued and status quo as on 15.12.1976 was directed to be maintained. C. W. J. C. Nos. 321 and 322 of 1976 were filed on 15.12.1976 and orders were passed on 16.12.76 restraining the respondents from retrenching them even if they had received the whole or part of retrenchment compensation. C. W. J. C. No. 335 of 1976 was filed on 21.12,1976 and in this application also interim orders similar to those in other applications were passed. The petitioners case is that the retrenchment order passed on 15.12.1976 remained a dead letter and they continued to serve as casual labours of the South Eastern Railway. On 18.11.1977 the names of the petitioners were struck off the rolls and they were directed by the respondents not to report for duty any further. The petitioners treating this as amounting to their retrenchment moved this Court by the present application for quashing their retrenchment alleged to have taken place on 18.11. 1977.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the striking off their names from the roll of workmen amounted to retrenchment. It was also alleged that neither they given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment nor were they given one month's pay in lieu thereof. The statutory retrenchment compensation was also not paid to them. Thus according to the petitioners, the provisions of section 25-F (a)-and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act were thrown to the winds and, therefore, the retrenchment was invalid and liable to be struk down.