STATE Vs. VINAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of seventeen special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. All these: appeals involve common question of law in regard to the interpretation of Sections 25B, 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Article, 19I7 hereinafter called the Act. They are therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the questions of law involved in these various writ petitions it will be sufficient to give facts from the D.B. Civil special appeal No. 16 of 1968 State and Ors. v. Vinnay Kumar as the facts in ail the appeals are almost similar.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the respondent challenged the validity of the order of retrenchment by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the petition the respondent contended that the impugned order was bad as it contravened Sections 25F and 25G of the Act. In support of his contentions, the respondent averred in his petition that he was a workman and had put in one year's continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act, bat as he was not paid any compensation nor any wages in lieu of notice as required by Section 25F of the Act, the order of retrenchment was invalid, The respondent further contended that the impugned order was bad as persons junior to him had been retained where as he came to be retrenched on 8 -9 -67 and so the impugned order being violative of provisions of Section 25G of the Act was invalid. It is not disputed that at all material times when the respondent was retrenched Sarv Shri M.G. Singhvi, M.C. Tyagi, R.L. Chauhan and some others were junior to him but they were retained whereas the respondent was retrenched against the provisions of Section 25G of the Act.