VINEY KUMAR MAJOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Viney Kumar majoo and say it he questions the validity of an order dated 8-9-67 (Ex. 6 on record) passed by the Chief Engineer Project, Public Works Department (B. and R.), rajasthan, retrenching certain Engineering Subordinates including the petitioner. In this order the petitioner's name occurs at serial No. 3. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these:

(2.) PETITIONER was an Engineering Graduate having obtained his degree in the year 1966. He came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works department (B and R ). Project Organisation under an order of the Chief Engineer, public Works Department (B and R) Rajasthan dated 25-7-66. He was appointed in the grade of Rs. 120-5-155-10-185-205-10-225 EB 22b 10-285-335-124-385. He was given a starting salary of Rs. 225/-per month and he joined the appointment on 28th October, 1966. Being a Junior Engineer the petitioner was included in the category of Engineering Subordinates within the meaning of Rule 4 (e) of the rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960. The petitioner proceeded to say that he was senior to Servashri M. G. Singhvi, M. C. Tyagi, R. L. Chauhan, C. S. Mehta, M. C. Gupta, R. K. Gupta and S. K. Garg. These persons were originally impleaded in the writ petition, but as their services came to be retrenched during the pendency of the writ petition, their names were deleted. According to the petitioner, a seniority list of Engineering subordinates was prepared and in the seniority list (Appendix-A) the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 17, while those of the erstwhile respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were shown below the petitioner at Nos. 20, 21, 27, 28, 31 and 32 respectively. On 31-7-67 an order was passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works department (B. and R.) Project, Jodhpur, respondent No. 2, saying that on account of the abolition of two Divisions and 18 Sub-Divisions the services of certain engineering Subordinates of the Project Organisation were retrenched with effect from 31-7-67. A list was appended to this order but no junior Engineer including the petitioner was listed for retrenchment. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2 on 8-9-67. Petitioner claims that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred as the "act" and consequently the order of his retrenchment has to fulfil requirements, of the Act.

(3.) IN challenging the validity of this order the petitioner contends that it violates sections 25f and 25g of the Act. The petitioner avers that although he had put in more than one year's service as contemplated by the Act, neither any compensation as contemplated by Section 25f of the Act was paid, nor were any wages in lieu of notice required by Section 25f were paid, in that the requisite notice was not served on him. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned order was bad as persons junior to him had been retained when he came to be retrenched on 8-9-67 and this violated Section 25g of the Act. In this context it was also contended that the way in which petitioner was chosen for retrenchment while his juniors were retained at the time of retrenchment, he was denied equality of treatment and the order thus violated also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.