PRAMOD CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4514/89 (Pramod Chand Bhandari v. State), dated October 18, 1993 with the prayer that the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to take the petitioner on duty on the establishment of Jodhpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. , Jodhpur. The facts of the case as narrated in S. B. Civil writ petition No. 4514/89 are that the petitioner who had been appointed as LDC with respondent Jodhpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar (for short as "bhandar") in the year 1975 and was the senior most employee amongst the ministerial staff, being at S. No. 1 in the seniority list of the staff, circulated in the year 1986 as per Annex. 1 attached with writ petition. According to the petitioner, without there being any reason whatsoever and exercising the powers conferred under Section 78 (1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Registrar had passed an order for liquidation of Bhandar on May 18, 1987 vide Ex. P/2 to the writ petition and in consequence of the liquidation order passed by the Registrar, services of the employees were terminated on June 12, 1987 vide Ex P/3 to the writ petition without complying with any provisions of the law. The order for terminating the services of employees was passed because of the reason that liquidation had been ordered. The petitioner had pleaded in the writ petition challenging the termination of services, being in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as no compensation whatsoever was either paid or offered for rendering the services for about 12 years. His services could not be terminated by a simple order and, therefore, the termination order, according to the petitioner, was voidabinitio. But before legality of the order violating any provision of the Act, could be determined the liquidation order of Bhandar itself, was withdrawn vide Ex. P/14. The establishment of the Bhandar was revived and the order Ex. P/3 of liquidation was withdrawn by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. According to the petitioner/appellant, that very basis of termination of services i. e. the liquidation of the society itself was not in existence and the society having been revived and the staff having been appointed on revival, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have taken the petitioner on job immediately on revival of the society. The petitioner was not offered any job as required under Section 25-H of the I. D. Act read with (sic.) relevant rule. Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that an employee who has been retrenched, shall have a preference, in case any future vacancy arises in the establishment, and the employer shall, in such manner, as be prescribed, give an opportunity to such an employee, who offers himself for re-employment. Such employee shall be given preference over all other employees. The petitioner had averred, which fact is not denied, that Bhandar had started functioning, but the management did not offer the employment to its old employees; with the result that many employees i. e, Sawal Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Jama and Ors. had to file Court cases and those persons were given employment under the orders of the Court.

(2.) THE petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus on various grounds (i) that the termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act (ii) that the liquidation order having been withdrawn and the Bhandar having been revived, the petitioner had a preferential right under Section 25-H of the I. D. Act (iii) that many juniors to the petitioner/ appellant were retained and were given appointment/employment after the revival of the Bhandar (iv) that the petitioner/appellant has specifically mentioned the name of one Chhagan Lal, who has been given employment but was junior to the petitioner.

(3.) ON the non controverted facts as mentioned above the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated October 18, 1993 had passed the order to the fact that since the order of liquidation has already been withdrawn and the Bhandar has already started working, therefore, if any vacancy exists and the respondents want to appoint some other person on the post of salesman, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathatically on preferential basis. The operative part of the order is as under :