HARI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment dated 17th August 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') praying that respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioners in continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioners were appointed in service under respondent No.2 in Air Force Mess, Uttarlai on different dates to work as Lascar and they were discharging their duties regularly since their appointment and completed 240 days in service and their services were terminated with effect from 1st January 1997 by verbal order. The petitioners challenged the verbal termination order before the Tribunal by filing Original Application in which it was mentioned that as per Model Standing Orders applicable upon various units of different establishments, a casual labour/workman who has completed six months service in the same establishment or under the same employer within the meaning of sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Sec.25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be brought on the regular strength of the establishment and his pay shall be fixed at the minimum in the time scale or pay applicable to the work he has been doing as a casual workman. In the OA filed by them against verbal termination order, a specific ground was taken that prior to termination, the petitioners preferred OA No.354/1996 for regularization in which notices were already issued but only to deprive the fruits of that petition, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. It is also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that services of the petitioner-applicants were terminated without compliance of Sec.25F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act so also without complying with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, therefore, their termination is illegal.

(3.) In the OA, a specific ground was taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal that action of the respondents is per-se malafide because only to deprive the applicant-petitioners from the benefit of regularization, the verbal termination order has been passed that too without following the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Model Standing Orders, therefore, verbal termination of petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1997 may kindly be set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the applicants.