RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five writ petitions raise common questions of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of each case are as follows:

(3.) HAVING stated these individual facts, it has been contended by the petitioners that their termination from service with effect from October 6, 1986 is against the provisions of Section 25f (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act' ). They have contended that they being clerks of the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act. According to them, their termination in the aforesaid manner is a case of retrenchment being effected within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. It was submitted that they immediately could not challenge their termination because of the lack of knowledge of law. The termination of their services is wholly arbitrary so as to be violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was contended that though the provision of Sub-section (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act are not attracted in this case but if they are attracted in the opinion of the Court, then they be declared ultra vires for the aforesaid reasons, because they are wholly arbitrary, unconscionable and unreasonable being violative of Articles 14 , 21 and 23 of the Constitution read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. They have also claimed equal pay for equal work in the relief. They have prayed for the following reliefs by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction: