JETH MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions, similar question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by one single order. The list of the cases disposed of is annexed in the schedule.

(2.) FOR convenience of disposal of these writ petitions, the facts of one case are taken up, Petitioner in this case was appointed as Gram Sewak by order dated 24 -11 -1979 Ann. 1 in the pay scale of Rs. 295 -8 -335 -10 -395 -15 -500. Initially the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of three months and thereafter it was extended from time to time, It is alleged that the extension was given to the petitioner with the concurrence of the Selection Commission constituted under Section 86(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. But the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the order dated 17 -1 -1983 Ann. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Panchayat Samiti is an industry, therefore, before terminating the petitioner's services, compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act (here in after referred to as the Act) is mandatory and the same has not been done in this case and, therefore, the order of termination is liable to be set aside. The respondent has filed a reply and has stated that the Panchayat Samiti is not an industry, therefore, Section 25F of the Act is not applicable to this case.

(3.) MR . Maheshwari, Additional Government Advocate has invited my attention to Director Postal Services (South) Kerala v. K.R.B. Kaimal 1984 Lab. and Ind. Cases 28 State of Punjab v. Shri Kuldip Singh 1983 Lab. and Ind. Case 83 Bijoy Kumar v. State of Bihar 1983 Lab. and Ind. Cases 198 and contended that since there are service rules governing the appointment of these persons, therefore, these services rules would govern them rather than Section 25F of the Act. I am afraid this contention is not open in view of Section 25J of the Act. Section 25J of the Act reads as under: