CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as Beldar and to give him all consequential benefits.

(2.) IN his writ petition the petitioner has stated that he was engaged as Beldar w. e. f. 19-2. 87 under Muster Roll No. 9059 on Reengus-Khatu Road, by the Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. Sub-Division, Dataramgarh, district Sikar. He there-afitr continued to work under non-petitioner No. 2 till 11. 10. 88. During this entire period he had worked under the same Sub-Division. After he had completed 455 days of work, his service was terminated by the non-petitioner No. 2. Before terminating his service non-petitioner No. 2 did not give any notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation, to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the P. W. D. comes within the definition of the 'industry' under section 2 (j) of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947. He falls within the definition of 'workman' under section 2 (s) of 1947 Act. On account of the violation of the provisions of Sec. 25f, the petitioner's termination is liable to be declared as void. The petitioner has also claimed enforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(3.) ALTHOUGH, the non-petitioners have pleaded that the petitioner had voluntarily absented from duty w. e. f. 15. 10. 88, the learned Dy. Government Advocate had failed to place any material before the Court to substantiate this assertion. No affidavit of the Assistant Engineer under whom the petitioner was engaged, has been filed. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that any notice was given to the petitioner or any entry was made regarding the absence of the petitioner.