HEM RAJ GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will decide three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India namely S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2109/86 (Hemraj Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan) ; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2111/86, (Yogendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan) ; and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2112/86 (Ramdhan Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan) , by a common order as same facts and same questions of law are involved in all these three writ petitions.

(2.) In all of them the respective petitioners pray that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated Sept.30,1986 whereby their services were terminated may be declared illegal and set aside and the respondent State may be directed to allow them to continue on the post of L.D.C. in the Office of the Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits and that the respondent may be directed to pay to them the salary in regular pay scale of L.D.C.

(3.) According to the petitioners, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the State of Rajasthan is 'industry' within the meaning assigned to this word by section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act"). Hemraj Gurjar and Yogendra Kumar petitioners were initially appointed as LDCs on daily wages in the aforesaid Department vide order dated 21.2.85 (Ann.1) and similarly petitioner Ramdhan Yadav was appointed vide order dated 25.2.85. They continued as LDC till 12.9.85 when a gap of 3 days was given. They were again appointed as LDC on daily wages with effect from 16.9.85 and continued to work as such till 2.12.85 when another break of three days was given. They were again taken on duty as L.D.C. with effect from 6.12.85 and continued on daily wages till 30.4.86. Then a break of 11 days was given and they were re-appointed as L.D.C. with effect from 12.5.86 and they continued as such upto 11.8.86. Then a break of eight days was given and they were again taken on duty as LDC on 20.8.86 on daily wages. Ultimately the services of all the three petitioners was terminated with effect from 30.9.86 vide order Annexure-4 which has been challenged by them.