Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1270 (PAT)

Bishundeo Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-10

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment Shashank Kr.Singh, J. 1. he present letters patent appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 2167 of 1995 whereby the learned writ court in view of the admitted facts that the appellants were daily wage employees and were not appointed, pursuant to any selection process or advertisement and as the project under which they were appointed had since been shelved on account of resources crunch, the respondents authorities had issued notice under section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment of daily wage employees and subsequent thereto, their services have been retrenched, did not interfere with their order of retrenchment. 2. The short fact of the present case is that the appellants claim to have been appointed on various posts from 1984 to 1997 and were posted in Bettiah Circle of the Deoghar Zone. However, no appointment letter in support of the aforesaid contention had been brought on the record. As the aforesaid appointment was between 1984 to 1997, the appellants claim for regularisation of their services under certain schemes of the State Government as well as equal pay for equal work. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the State as per the counter-affidavit filed before the writ court was that the appellants were engaged on daily wages in connection with execution of the Burner Resevoir Scheme executed through Irrigation Division, Katahratand, Bettiah, Irrigation Division, Sono, Irrigation Division No.1, Jhajha and Irrigation Circle, Bettiah within the zone of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar. 4. Their further case as per the counter-affidavit is that as the execution of the said project had since been shelved on account of resource crunch, the authorities issued notice under section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for retrenchment of daily wages employees engaged in the said project. However, as the wages of the appellants including the retrenchment compensation had not been paid, as such, they were not retrenched at that time. Subsequently during the pendency of the writ application the order of retrenchment was issued after complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. These termination orders were also subsequently challenged in the writ application by filing an amendment petition. 5. Subsequently during the pendency of the writ application the order of retrenchment was issued after complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. These termination orders were also subsequently challenged in the writ application by filing an amendment petition. 5. A further contention, which has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that some of the other similarly situated employees being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of retrenchment raised dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said court gave an award in favour of the parties to the said dispute and on the basis of the aforesaid award dated 30.11.1990, the authorities were compelled to take back the services of those retrenched employees. The aforesaid orders of the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Bhagalpur was challenged before this court and the Supreme Court but the aforesaid order was not interfered with. 6. The contention of the appellants is that as to whether they being similarly situated to the aforesaid employees can be discriminated with. If similar yardstick is adopted for these appellants also then the respondents ought to have taken them back in service. 7. As would be clear from the order of the learned writ court that the respondents had contested the aforesaid fact of the appellants contending therein that only those persons had been taken back in service in whose favour an award was given and upheld by this court as well as the Supreme Court. A further contention which was made before the writ court is that the appellants do not stand on the same footing and they are not similarly situated. 8. A further contention which was made before the writ court is that the appellants do not stand on the same footing and they are not similarly situated. 8. The learned writ court taking the aforesaid facts into consideration and in view of the fact that the engagement of the appellants was for a particular project, which has been abandoned due to financial crunch and as the service of the appellants has been retrenched after paying them compensation under section 25(f) of the Act, as such, the writ court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass vs. The State of Haryana reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C.2049, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 789 and in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors reported in 1996(1) S.C.C. 773 came to the conclusion that the action of the State was not required to be interfered with. 9. A detailed argument has been made by the counsel for the appellants that the Scheme has been formulated for regularisation of services of retrenched employees and a further contention has been made by showing some paper cutting that the Minister had made a statement to the extent that the aforesaid project was being revived. 10. This court, in any view of the matter, without taking subsequent develop ment into consideration is of the considered view that the writ court has rightly not interfered with the order of retrenchment, as the same has been passed after compliance of the provisions of section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in view of the financial crunch faced by the State. 11. In the result, there is no merit in this letters patent appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.