KARAN SINGH SAKTAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated August 14, 2001 passed by Shri RAJESH BALIA, J. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/1995, dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the termination order. According to him, he has not been terminated and he continues to be in service of the Government of Rajasthan so as to be entitled to all the benefits consequential thereto. He also sought the relief of declaration to declare the purported termination of service as illegal.

(3.) According to the appellant, he was appointed as a Patwari in Irrigation Department in Som Kamla Amba Project on October 22, 1991 and he continued to work in the aforesaid capacity till March 3, 1993 i. e. the date when his services were terminated by oral order. After the services were terminated the appellant through his Union invoked conciliation proceedings by making representation to the Conciliation Officer, Labour Department Udaipur on June 3, 1993. A reply was filed to the conciliation proceedings and a rejoinder was also submitted by the appellant through his Union. However for the reasons best known to him the Conciliation Officer dropped the conciliation proceedings. He issued a notice of demand of justice on December 17, 1994 (Annnexure 4) and his request for revision of pay of the workman of the work charged employees as per the Rules of 1987 was also not granted. According to Shri R.S. Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the department is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and the appellant's services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of mandatory requirement of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act. It is further averred in the petition that before effecting termination of service of the appellant no seniority list as envisaged by Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules had been prepared by the Respondents.