GH AHMAD GANAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Naqash vehemently argued that he has taken the grounds in his petition that the order of disengagement of the petitioners, as projected by the respondents in the appellate court is an order which has been pre -dated. The petitioner were never dis -engaged, but only their wages and dues were stopped. The petitioners have not been, retrenched as per their averments and furthermore Mr. Naqash takes an alternative plea that in case the petitioners are being retrenched, then they were entitled to issuance of prior notice under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. His further contention is that the Forest Corporation has been declared as an Industry, as such, the respondents were legal obligation to issue notice to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE further contention of the petitioners is that they are not being allowed to function as daily wagers on the places where they have been engaged and the orders of their retrenchment is only a camouflage to deprive them of the benefits which have accrued to them as daily wagers as they have been allowed to continue as such by the respondents in terms of different orders, as projected in the suit. Mr. naqash further submits that the orders of disengagement of the petitioners have never been communicated to them and the respondents were bound under law to communicate the same and till such time the order is not communicated, as per law of the land, the order will be deemed non -existent in the eyes of law and not enforceable etc.

(3.) THE first appellate court while passing the judgment has given cogent reasons and held that the plaintiffs have: