YASHWANT SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing orders Annexure 8 and Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 by which his services were terminated with forthwith effect.

(2.) AS per averments disclosed in the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya, Bhupkhera, District Alwar on 28th November 1985 on daily wages basis vide order Annexure 1. This appointment was made for 53 days. Subsequently, the term of his appointment was extended by Annexure 2 dated 28th January 1986 and by order Annexure 3 dated 25th April 1986 till further orders. He thus continued to work as a Class IV employee in the Government Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya upto 13th June 1987. All of a sudden, his services were abruptly terminated by orders Annexure 8 and Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 issued by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner challenges the termination of his service on the grounds that the Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya is an industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and he is a workman as defined therein. He has continuously worked for more than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of 13th June 87 when his services were terminated. The termination of his service amounts to retrenchment. His retrenchment was made without following the mandates of Section 25-F of the Act inasmuch as no notice or wages in lieu of notice and compensation were paid to him as required under Section 25-F. The retrenchment is, therefore, invalid. The relief claimed is that the impugned orders Annexure 8 and Annexure 9 be quashed and he be reinstated with full back wages. The prayer has been also made that work of a regular Class IV employee was taken from him but he was paid only daily wages which is much less than the regular pay scales of a Class IV employee. He, therefore, also seeks directions to the respondents to pay him the salary of a regular Class IV employee.

(3.) THE petition was resisted by the respondents. The appointment of the petitioner as a Class IV employee on daily wages basis was admitted and it was stated that it was not a whole-time appointment. The petitioner was employed as a part-time employee. He is, therefore, not a workman as defined in the Act. Since he was a part-time employee, he cannot be taken to be a workman as defined in the Act. As such the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not required to be followed. The petition is, therefore, misconceived and hence not maintainable.