BHAKAR RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. After going through the averments in the writ petition as well as the documents placed on record and as per statements of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that petitioners are aggrieved against the alleged illegal retrenchment by the respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have been shown as regular staff by the respondents but it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that employees have executed an agreement with the respondents, copy of agreement is placed on record as Annexure 2. In the agreement it is mentioned that employees are engaged in a project for a fixed period that too on contract basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no reduction of work nor there a plea of reduction of strength or there is a plea of lack of availability of work etc., therefore, the respondents cannot remove the petitioners who are working for so many years, hence the retrenchment of services of petitioners is illegal.

(2.) Looking to the entirety of the facts, I deem it proper that petitioners should have approached the Labour Court instead of straightaway approaching this Court. Therefore, I do not find any force in this writ petition.

(3.) However, it is made clear that petitioners, if choose, may approach to any appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. In case any petition is filed by petitioners to the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government is requested to pass the appropriate order expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order before appropriate forum by the petitioners and the appropriate Government may refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court as per their decision.