MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a diploma-holder in civil Engineering and was appointed as an Engineering Subordinate in a temporary capacity in the Irrigation Deptt. of the State Government by an order dated 13-12-1966 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Udaipur. One of the terms of his appointment as mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 13-12-1966 was that the service of the petitioner was terminable on one month's notice on either side. It was also mentioned therein that the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of six months or till persons selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or surplus hands would become available, whichever was earlier. THE petitioner joined as Engineering Subordinate in pursuance of the aforesaid order of appointment on December 27, 1966 and was posted in the Panchayat Samiti, Bhensroadgarh. THE petitioner has submitted that although he has worked for more than a year on the aforesaid post, his services were terminated by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation dated January, 17, 1968 under sec. 23 A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. THE petitioner has further submitted that he was relieved from his post in the forenoon of February 1, 1968. THE petitioner's case is that he was a workman within the meaning of clause (s) of sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). His grievance is that he was not paid any retrenchment compensation as envisaged under sec. 25f of the Act. He has also made a grievance that persons junior to him in the category of Engineering Subordinates have been retained in service, while the services of the petitioner have been retrenched and as such the provisions of sec. 25g of the Act have been violated and the normal principle of 'last come first go' has not been followed. THE petitioner has therefore, prayed that the order of termination of his services Ex. 2 dated January 17, 1968 be quashed.

(2.) THE respondents have contested the writ petition and they have submitted that one month's notice pay has already been paid to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of sec. 23 A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. THEy denied the claim of the petitioner that he was a workman within the meaning of sec. 2 (s) of the Act and have also joined issue on the question that the Irrigation Department of the State Government was an Industry. THE respondents have submitted that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to the case of the petitioner as he was not a workman and his services have been properly terminated in accordance with the Rajasthan Service Rules. THEy have also taken the stand that the petitioner submitted an application for re-appointment on the post of Engineering Subordinate and he was directed to get his name registered with the Man Power Cell in the General Administration Department of the State Government and to furnish his registration number, but he did not comply. THEy have further stated that the petitioner was appointed as a work-charged Supervisor on Famine Relief Works in Dungarpur district by the order dated May 30, 1969 but he did not join and as such the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition as he must be deemed to have waived his rights, if any. THE stand of the respondents is that the present case was one of simple termination in accordance with the terms and conditions of service and is not a case of retrenchment In the alternative the respondents have submitted that the petitioner should have taken recourse to the remedies available under the Act, if he at all considered that his services were retrenched and he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act. As regards the objection of the petitioner that persons junior to him have been retained in service, while his services were terminated by the order Ex. 2, the respondents have stated in their reply that the services of Surendra Kumar Mango and Dillaram, in respect of whom the petitioner has made a grievance in the writ petition were also terminated by the very order the Chief Engineer dated January 17, 1968 (Ex. 2) by which the petitioner's services were terminated and as such the petitioner can have no grievance on that account. As regards Nasib Ali Khan it has been submitted by the respondents that he joined the post of Engineering Subordinate on December 26, 1966 and was not junior to the petitioner who had joined the said post on December 27, 1966. THE respondents have, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has no case whatsoever and the writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) HIDAYATULLAH J. , as he then was, in the aforesaid case recounted the principles so far settled as under: - "every human activity in which enters the relationship of employers and employees, is not necessarily creative of an industry. Personal services rendered by domestic and other servants, administrative services of public officials, service in aid of occupations of professional men such as doctors and lawyers, etc. , employment of teachers and so on may result in relationship in which there are employers on the one side and employees on the other but they must be excluded because they do not come within the denotation of the term 'industry'. Primarily, therefore, industrial disputes occur when the operation undertaken rests upon co-operation between employers and employees with a view to production and distribution of material goods, in other words, wealth, but they may arise also in cases where the co-operation is to produce material services. "