PANCHAYAT SAMITI Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated February 9, 1992 passed by learned single Judge whereby he has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to regularise the petitioner's services on the post of tractor driver on which he was held to be appointed in the award of the Labour Court, Udaipur and also directed the respondents to fix the petitioner at the regular pay scale applicable to the driver w. e. f. October 12, 1982 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal are that the petitioner was retrenched on September 8, 1992 (Anx. 9) after giving notice of termination with three months wages. The same was challenged by means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition as observed above. Hence, this special appeal.

(3.) MR. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned single Judge mainly on the ground that the respondent was appointed as a Pump Mistry under the "grow More Food Scheme" and his services were terminated as that scheme was discontinued which was mentioned in the termination order itself, therefore, the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the termination order was passed in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has contended that the learned single Judge has erred in granting relief of regularisation on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondents in the year 1989 considering that the petitioner has worked for 25 years, he should be regularised and should be paid regular pay scale on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work without there being any pleading in the writ petition. He has also contended that the learned single Judge has not considered the affidavit filed by Vikas Adhikari to the effect that the respondent was not appointed regularly. He has lastly urged that the respondent continued in service upto the year 1992 due to stay order of this Court whereas he attained the age of superannuation in the year 1986. He has relied on Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi (1992-1i-LLJ-452) (SC), State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1993-II-LLJ-937) (SC) and State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Hari Narayan Bhowal (1995-II-LLJ-328) (SC ).