STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PATASI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents were working as 'Sathin' in the Women's Development Project. They filed a petition before this Court claiming that the Zila Vikas Adhikaran, Ajmer was 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and was also an 'Industry' as defined by Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047. They also claimed that 'Sathins' fell within the definition of Workman tinder Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 5 petitioners were appointed between Oct., 1996 and Sept. 1989. They were being paid Rs. 200.00 per month as remuneration. The term of the appointment was extended from time to time. According to the petitioners they were appointed for the purpose of promoting awareness in the rural women for their participation in the affairs of family, community and economic activities. They were spending 10 hours a day on the work, but were paid only Rs. 200.00 per month which they had to accept because of the problem of unemployment and their coming from poor staring families. The services of the petitioners were terminated on 15.2.91 as no longer required. The petitioners contended that there were vacancies available and their services could not have been terminated like that. The petitioners also claimed that the termination of their Services amounted to illegal retrenchment as provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. The petitioners, therefore prayed for issue of a writ quashing their termination orders and for issuing of a direction to regularise their services on the post of 'Sathin'.

(2.) The learned Single Judge did not hold the petitioners to he Govt. servants, but still held that general principles of natural justice should have been followed before terminating their services. He did not go into the question as to whether Industrial Disputes Act would apply or not, but quashed the termination orders holding them to he arbitrary and without any reason or time. The appellants have come up in appeal against this order:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents had no legal rights as their employment cannot be said to be a service under the Govt., the employment was of a part time nature and was for a particular purpose. It was also submitted that the organisational set up under which 'Sathins' were appointed clearly showed that it was a non-government appointment for the purpose of a particular Project and such an appointment could not be categorised as Govt. Service. In support of his contention the learned Addl. Adv. Genf. appearing for the appellants referred to a publication titled "women's Development Project.", Rajasthan published by the Deptt. of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Govt. of Rajasthan in May, 1984. In this publication outline of 'Women Development Project' is set out. The broad aim of the Women's Development Project is to operationalise the policy framed for women's development.