DALIP SINGH SAHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 6.5.1983 an appointment was accorded to the petitioner as Junior Engineer with a consolidated salary of Rs.500.00 per month with Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun District Nagaur. The employer retrenched the petitioner workman from service w.e.f. 8.8.1984, thus, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred for its adjudication to Labour Court, Bikaner by the appropriate government under a notification dated 30.10.2000. The Labour Court vide its award dated 16.12.2004 answered the reference by holding the retrenchment illegal. A direction was also given for reinstatement of the petitioner in service without back wages but with a compensation of Rs.2500.00. In pursuant to the award dated 16.12.2004 the petitioner was reinstated in service, however, under a letter dated 19.5.2005 the Deputy Legal Remembrance, Department of Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur instructed the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun to retrench the petitioner from service after adhering the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947"). Being aggrieved by the instructions given by the Deputy Legal Remembrance under the communication dated 19.5.2005, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) THIS Court by order dated 7.9.2005 stayed the order dated 19.5.2005 and also its consequential order dated 29.6.2005. In view of the interim orders aforesaid the petitioner is still continuing in service with Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in employment of the Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun which is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947. The retrenchment of a workman can be made by examining its own needs and not under the instructions of any other authority. In the instant matter the termination sought to be made is not by examining need of the same by the employer but is under instructions of the Deputy Legal Remembrance, who is having no say in working of the Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun. It is asserted that the retrenchment sought to be in the instant matter is by way of abdication of powers. It is further submitted that termination of the petitioner is bad being discriminatory also. According to learned counsel one another Junior Engineer Shri Santlal Dhaka who too was retrenched from service in the year 1984 alongwith the petitioner and was reinstated in service as a consequent to an award passed by the Labour Court is still continuing in service and the respondents are not going to retrench him.

(3.) HAVING considered the factual position noticed above, I am of the view that when the respondents are continuing Shri Santlal Dhaka in service who is a person similarly situated to the petitioner, then there is no reason to retrench the petitioner. He deserves the same treatment as extended to Shri Santlal Dhaka.