SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common question of law is involved in all these 58 (fifty eight) writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. The petitions are directed against an order of the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for brevity R.S.R.T.C. or Corporation here in after) dated 31 -5 -1988 by which the petitioner's services were terminated with forthwith effect.

(2.) THERE is not much controversy between the parties in respect of the facts involved. Barring a few of the petitioners, all of them were appointed as Conductors in R.S.R.T.C. in 1987 as is shown in the impugned order Annexure -1 filed in D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3071/88 Shambhu Dayal v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. All of them had put in more than 240 days' service during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. to say 31 -5 -1988. At the time of retrenchment one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice and compensation as detailed out in the impugned order were paid to them. Numerous grounds have been taken in the petitions to show that the impugned order of retrenchment is illegal and void. One of these grounds is that the compensation paid to them was not calculated its accordance with the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Dispute's Act, 1947 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Act'). It was stated that the compensation was computed making the date of their regular appointment as the basis for it. The petitioners had been in service even before their regular appointments when they were recruited on daily wages basis. The period during which they remained employed as Conductors in the Corporation on daily wage basis has not been taken into account in computing the compensation. It was also stated that the compensation and. one month's wages were not paid to the petitioners on 31 -3 -1988 when they were retrenched. These amounts were paid later on. Thus the retrenchment is in contravention and violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The retrenchment is, therefore, illegal, void and inoperative. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that they should be reinstated with full back wages.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R.L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.