Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Jalil vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 December, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1333 of 2008
======================================================
Shivdeo Chaudhoury son of Sri Yamuna Chaudhoury, resident of Chandra
Vihar Colony, At & P.O. Ashiyana Digha Road, P.S. Digha, District -
Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1414 of 2008
======================================================
Nakul Chandra Pandit, son of Gahan Pandit, resident of village - Vasarriya,
P.O. & P.S. - Seemra, Bampastown, Devghat, District Devghar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2439 of 2008
======================================================
Nageshwar Prasad Yadav, son of Late Dhanushdhari Pd. Yadav, resident of
village & P.O. Sarsai, P.S. Mahua, Bhaya - Sarai, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
2
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2467 of 2008
======================================================
Ravi Bhushan Pandey, son of Late Chandrika Pandey, resident of village
Pandey Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Dharahara, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2520 of 2008
======================================================
Shatrudhan Singh, son of Late Ram Bachchan Singh, resident of village
Ghoswar, P.O. & PS. Raguli, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
3
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2521 of 2008
======================================================
Rajeshwar Bhagat, son on Shree Binda Bhagat, resident of village Chouti
Digdhi Khurd, P.O. & PS. -Hajipur, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2730 of 2008
======================================================
Laxmi Kant Jha, son of Late Lalan Jha, resident of village - Sukhi Seemra,
P.O. Jaithapur, P.S. - Sumha, District Purvi Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2860 of 2008
======================================================
Shatrudhan Paswan, son of Shri Shukhdeb Paswan, resident of village -
Chowl Dhanauti, PO. & P.S. - Hajipur, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
4
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5365 of 2008
======================================================
Chandrika Ravi Das, S/o Dabav Ravi Das, village Pipra, P.O. Jaddumri,
P.S. Pipra, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5383 of 2008
======================================================
Dashrath Prasad Singh, son of Devki Singh, Village - Niyapur, P.O. & P.S.
Fatuah, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
5
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5403 of 2008
======================================================
Vijay Yadav, S/o Ram Laxman Singh, Village - Budhu Chak, P.O. & P.S. -
Fatuah, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5430 of 2008
======================================================
Rajendra Paswan, S/o Ram Path Paswan, Village Ratanpur, P.O.
Bhatheshwar, via & P.S. - Dholi Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5466 of 2008
======================================================
Raja Ram Yadav, S/o Charitar Roy, Village Makshoodpur, P.O. & P.S. -
Fatuah, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
6
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6573 of 2008
======================================================
Bhaso Prasad Singh, S/o Shiva Prasad Singh, Village & P.O. - Khakhi, Via
& P.S. - Warsaliganj, District - Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1892 of 2008
======================================================
Baleshwar Bhagat, son of Bhikan Bhagat, resident of village - Chauti
Digdhi Khurd, P.O. & P.S. - Hajipur, District - Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
7
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1950 of 2008
======================================================
Amresh Kumar, son of Shree Raj Ballabh Prasad Singh, resident of village
& P.O. Jaintipur, P.S. Lalganj, District - Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1951 of 2008
======================================================
Md. Ibrahim son of Late Neezamuddin, resident of Sarri Gali, Mirshikar
toil, P.O. & P.S. Gulzarbagh, Patna-7, District Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2126 of 2008
======================================================
Kailash Paswan, son of Late Jagat Paswan, resident of village & P.O. -
Shahdullapur, P.S. Lalganj, District Vaishali..... .... Petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
8
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2152 of 2008
======================================================
Md.Jalil, son of Md. Gafoor, resident of village - Maricha, P.O - Sarai, P.S.
Sarai, District - Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2309 of 2008
======================================================
Naresh Kumar, son of Shree Narayan Singh, resident of village - Kurkuri,
P.O. & P.S. Phulwarisharif, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
9
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2384 of 2008
======================================================
Shiv Dayal Saw, son of Shree Hanooman Sah, resident of village - Tershi,
P.O. - Ratnakar, P.S. Raghupur, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1815 of 2008
======================================================
Awadhesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Nayan Singh, resident of P.O. - Ram
Nagar, Labhar Chak, P.S. Ramdiri, District Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited, Uddyan
Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development
Corporation Limited, Uddyan Nursery, Old Secretariat, P.S.
Sachivalaya, District Patna.
4. The Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chairman, Board of
Directors, Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation
Limited, Vikash Bhawan, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
For the Petitioners : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012
10
For the Corporation : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Advocate.
Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh, G.A.-8
======================================================
P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
ORDER
8 19-12-2012All these writ petitions are similar in nature, respondents are the same and the grievances of the petitioners are also the same as they are casual daily wage workers since several decades in the Bihar Fruit & Vegetable Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟ for the sake of brevity) and the reliefs claimed by all of them are for regularization of their services after quashing letters of their termination dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1 to all the writ petitions) issued by Managing Director of the Corporation and also for reinstating them back in service with full wages and other consequential benefits after regularization in terms of award dated 22.07.1988 (Annexure-2 to all the writ petitions) passed in Reference Case No.01 of 1987.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances all these writ petitions were taken up as analogous cases and learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents of all the aforesaid cases were heard together and these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-201211
3. It is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners worked in the Corporation as casual daily wage workers for several decades and their services were terminated vide order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1) by Managing Director of the Corporation on the basis of the decision of Cabinet of Ministers in 2003 to dissolve the Corporation, which was followed by the decision of Agricultural Produce Commissioner dated 09.05.2006 to end the Corporation, which was communicated vide memo dated 20.06.2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they had been continuously working since decades in the Corporation till the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 was passed and this fact had not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It was further stated that in the year 1986-87 the petitioners along with similarly situated daily wage workers had raised an industrial dispute through their Union, namely Bihar Fal, Sabji Vikash Nigam Karamchari Sangh for their regularization in service, whereafter the State Government referred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna where it was registered as Reference Case No.01 of 1987, which was contested at length by the petitioners and their co-workers on one side and the Corporation and its authorities on the other Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 12 side, in which evidences were also led on their behalf.
5. However, after appraisal of the pleadings and evidences as well as the decision of Supreme Court dated 16.12.1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.1509 of 1987 the Industrial Tribunal, Patna found that the observations given in the said decision fully applied to the said reference case according to which those workers even if they had been appointed in irregular manner and had completed 240 days, their services had to be regularized and pronounced its award dated 22.07.1988 (Annexure-2), the concluding portion of which reads as follows:-
"I would, therefore, give a direction that the Corporation and the Representative of the Union or the workman himself if he so desires will sit together and prepare a list of persons from the record of the Corporation and Ext.66 (filed by the union and those who have completed 240 days according to the method of calculation indicated earlier their services will be regularized by the Corporation. This must be done within four months of the pronouncement of the Award. The Corporation will also prepare a scheme for regularization of those persons who have been working for more than one year as stated above and thereafter those whose services have been regularized will get their pay and allowances equal to the minimum pay in the scale of regularly employed persons in the corresponding cadre of Corporation. This will be effective from the date of the pronouncement of the Award."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 13 the aforesaid award was challenged by the Corporation in this court vide CWJC No.92 of 1989 and after hearing both the parties and after considering the matter in detail a Bench of this court dismissed the said writ petition by its order dated 16.11.1993 (Annexure-3) affirming the award of the Tribunal. The Corporation challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in L.P.A. No.106 of 1993, but it was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 06.07.1995 (Annexure-3/A). The Corporation challenged the order of Division Bench before the Apex Court vide Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.25070 of 1995, but the said petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 20.11.1995 (Annexure-3/B).
7. Thus learned counsel for the petitioners averred that abovementioned award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna for regularization of the petitioners and other similarly situated workers in the Corporation was affirmed up till the Apex Court and the Corporation lost at all stages and the award became final and hence the Corporation was bound to implement the said award and to regularize the services of the petitioners, but it completely ignored the said award and never implemented it and forced the petitioners to continue as daily wage workers. Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 14
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that after the aforesaid award and decisions of the courts of law the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar also vide its letter dated 10.01.2001 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of its Joint Secretary advised the Managing Director of the Corporation to regularize the services of 34 daily wage workers including the petitioners. This letter was issued by the Department on the basis of legal opinion of the Advocate General of Bihar dated 12.12.2000 (Annexure-6 series), but the Corporation and its authorities very conveniently ignored the said letter also, whereafter some of the daily wage workers, who were to be regularized along with the petitioners, died.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the reason for removal of the petitioners given in the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 was that Cabinet of Ministers had taken some decision in the year 2003 on the basis of which the Corporation decided to dissolve the Board in 2006, but the said basis was absolutely frivolous and mischievous as the Board or the Corporation has not yet been dissolved.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the respondent-Corporation in a most unfair manner and with malafide intention had relied upon the stale and outdated Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 15 decision of the Council of Ministers dated 20.03.2003 and the Resolution of the Corporation dated 09.05.2006 merely to terminate the services of the petitioners as much before the impugned orders dated 03.07.2007 of petitioners termination from services, the process of revival and restart of Hajipur Unit of the Corporation had already started on 20.03.2007 and all necessary steps were being taken to revive the Hajipur Unit since 20.03.2007 itself and during this process the decision of Council of Ministers of the State of Bihar granting approval for revival was taken on 29.09.2007 and further decision was taken on 22.07.2008 to sanction Rs.274 lacs and Rs.1833 lacs for the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively for spending on revival of the Unit of Corporation. All these facts are clear from letter of the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar dated 04.02.2010 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of its Joint Secretary.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the aforesaid facts were also affirmed by fresh notice issued by the Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation in August 2008 in which it was clearly stated that as a result of Resolution of Council of Ministers dated 22.07.2008, the State Government had taken decision to revive and restart the Hajipur Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 16 Unit of the Corporation for which the above stated amounts had already been sanctioned. Hence even today the Corporation is existing and process for revival of its Unit is continuing and funds are being pumped in by the State Government. This completely demolishes the claim of the Corporation.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that even if the reason given in the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 was assumed to be correct, the Corporation had to proceed in accordance with law, but no legal step had been taken by the authorities while passing the impugned order as even the provision of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) had not been complied which provides as follows:-
25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen :- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer only-
(a) the workman has been given one month‟s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days‟ average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 17 thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
13. Thus learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that neither respondents had taken any such step nor they had shown that due process of law had been followed before issuing the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners. Hence according to the settled principles of law the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law and is void ab initio and it has to follow reinstatement and back wages. In this connection he relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court as well as a decision of this Court in case of Gammon India Limited vs. Niranjan Dass reported in (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 509; in case of Pramod Jha and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2003 LAB.I.C. 1449; in case of Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur reported in 2011 LAB.I.C. 2799 and in case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 249.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities admitted the factual position as claimed by the petitioners and stated that the Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 18 Corporation was established under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1980 with 49% share of Central Government and 51% share of the State Government, its authorized capital being Rs.225 lacs, whereafter the Corporation established Fruit Processing Unit at Hajipur, which came in production in the year 1985 and had been closed since 1990 as the Corporation had no working capital.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities stated that award dated 22.07.1988 was pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No.01 of 1987 while the Corporation was functioning, but thereafter the matter remained pending in courts of law and hence the award could not be complied and in the meantime in the year 1990 the Corporation itself become defunct and non- functional and hence there was no occasion for complying the award which was affirmed by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities also stated that the petitioners were themselves satisfied and continued working in the Corporation as daily wage workers and never raised objection against it for decades thereafter, hence their claim of regularization now after termination of their services in the year 2007 by the impugned order is absolutely frivolous and Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 19 misconceived.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities averred that the Council of Ministers of State of Bihar in their meeting dated 20.03.2003 took a policy decision to wind up 18 Corporations including the respondent- Corporation as they were running in loss, were incapable to pay salary to their employees and had become defunct industries and in view of general direction of this Hon‟ble Court, the Corporation had filed Company Petition No.03 of 2005 for its winding up and only thereafter the Corporation called its special meeting of its Board of Directors on 09.05.2006 and the Board passed a special Resolution on 09.05.2006 for liquidation of Corporation on account of acute financial crunch leading to failure in payment of salary to its employees and in this situations the Corporation had terminated the services of its employees.
17. In the meantime since the Corporation had become defunct and winding up process had started and payments were not being made to its employees, the matter was taken up by Justice Uday Sinha Commission with respect to payment of salaries to the workmen in January, 2005 but immediately thereafter the appropriate decision was taken by the Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 20 Board of Directors of the Corporation on 09.05.2006 regarding which memo dated 20.06.2006 was communicated by the Corporation, whereafter Justice Uday Sinha Commission did not take up the matter.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities asserted that much after the aforesaid decision of the Council of Ministers dated 20.03.2003 and the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 09.05.2006, the process of revival was started in 2007 but despite sanction of amounts the file relating to revival is still pending before the Government and till date Hajipur Unit has not been revived and hence no fresh circumstance has arisen to show that the Corporation is generating money and thus it cannot afford any further employee until it starts full-fledged operation of its unit.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities submitted that earlier one of the petitioners Shivdeo Choudhary (CWJC No.1333 of 2008) had filed CWJC No.4908 of 2004 for regularization of his service in the Corporation but the said writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2007 but this fact had been purposely suppressed by the writ petitioners in the instant cases and on this fact alone these writ petitions are fit to be dismissed. Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 21
20. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities also submitted that exactly similar employees of Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam had also filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No.15549 of 2005 and analogous cases for the same reliefs but the said writ petitions were decided by a Bench of this court on 08.09.2008 rejecting the claims of the petitioners. This order of learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.11.2008 passed in L.P.A. No.841 of 2008 and its analogous cases, hence in these circumstances petitioners‟ services were rightly terminated.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities argued that section 25-F of the Act was not applicable to this case as the unit was being closed down. He further argued that there was no occasion for payment of compensation to the workmen under the provision of section 25- FFF of the Act as in the instant cases the impugned order had been passed only due to financial crunch and inability of Corporation to pay anything to the petitioners. In this connection he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and another, etc. reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3086.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-201222
22. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities claimed that the impugned order was passed only due to financial crunch and closure of functioning of the Corporation and its unit, as the unit is not working and hence there is no requirement of any workmen nor any person has been appointed in the Corporation after removal of the petitioners. Hence he averred that in case the Corporation and its units are revived and employees are required for its functioning, the Corporation will give preference to the petitioners with relaxation of age etc.
23. Finally, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation and its authorities argued that petitioners had got an alternative remedy available to them to raise industrial dispute with respect to their claim in accordance with the Act, which can appropriately settle the matter after hearing the parties. Hence there was no occasion for the petitioners to approach this court and on this ground also these writ petitions are fit to be dismissed.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities stated that its stand was similar to the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation with respect to factual matrix and legal aspects. However, he Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 23 reiterated that rigors imposed under section 25-F of the Act would not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case when there was no question of retrenchment rather some daily wage workers had been removed merely on the basis of financial crunch of the Corporation which resulted in closing down of its unit.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities submitted that petitioners were merely daily wage workers but worked only till there was work to be done and hence they cannot claim any right or entitlement merely on the basis that they had remained as daily wage workers for some years.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities averred that in the instant matter the element of public exchequer was also involved as huge amounts were being paid to such workers although there was no work to be taken from them nor there was any source of income. Hence in absence of any production or any work there was no occasion for the Corporation to fritter away public money in this manner.
27. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, the facts admitted by both the parties are that the petitioners have worked in the Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 24 respondent-Corporation as casual daily wage workers for several decades and when services of some of the daily wage workers including one of the aforesaid petitioners were terminated on 20.06.1986, they raised an industrial dispute through their union Bihar Fal & Sabji Vikash Nigam Karamchari Sangh and the matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal where it was recorded as Reference Case No.01 of 1987 and after hearing all the parties and considering the matter in detail it was decided in favour of the workmen vide award dated 22.07.1988 as the termination of those workmen was held to be bad in law for non- compliance of the provision of section 25-F of the Act.
28. The said award was challenged by the Corporation vide CWJC No.92 of 1989 but vide order dated 16.11.1993 the said writ petition was dismissed and the award of Industrial Tribunal was upheld. Against the said order Corporation filed L.P.A. No.106 of 1993 but the same was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 06.07.1995. Finally when the Corporation challenged the said decision of Division Bench vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.25070 of 1995 the Apex Court dismissed the same also vide order dated 20.11.1995. Hence the said award attained finality.
29. A bare perusal of the said award dated 22.07.1988 Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 25 (Annexure-2) clearly shows that it concluded by giving directions that the Corporation and the representative of the union or the workmen himself if he so desires will sit together and prepare a list of persons from the record of the Corporation and those who had completed 240 days according to the method of calculation indicated earlier their services would be regularized by the Corporation. This was to be done within four months of the pronouncement of the Award. The Corporation was also directed to prepare a scheme for regularization of those persons who have been working for more than one year as stated above and thereafter those whose services have been regularized will get their pay and allowances equal to the minimum pay in the scale of regularly employed persons in the corresponding cadre of Corporation. This was directed to be effective from the date of the pronouncement of the Award.
30. The wordings of the said award as detailed above clearly showed that it was for all the daily wage workers working in the Corporation at that very time which also included all writ petitioners of these writ petitions. Hence the main question which remains to be decided in the instant cases is the question of applicability and implementability of the aforesaid award, whereas the defence of the respondent-Corporation and Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 26 its authorities is that the Corporation having become defunct and non-functional in the year 1990, the award cannot be implemented specially when subsequently on 20.03.2003 the Council of Ministers of Bihar took a policy decision to wind up the respondent-Corporation along with some other corporations as they were running in loss which was followed by the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 09.05.2006 for liquidation of the Corporation on account of acute financial crunch leading to failure in payment of salary to its employees.
31. The specific claim of the petitioners is that the award in question of the Industrial Tribunal was dated 22.07.1988 and it could not be earlier implemented because it was under challenge before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court and in the meantime in the year 1990 the Corporation itself became defunct and non-functional having no fund at all to pay to its workers. This claim of the respondent- Corporation and its authorities appears to be completely frivolous and baseless because had the Corporation become defunct and non-functional in the year 1990 they could have raised this point before the High Court where the writ case challenging the award remained pending from 1989 till Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 27 16.11.1993 when the claim of respondent was rejected and the award was affirmed by a well considered and reasoned order. Similarly the respondent-Corporation and its authorities did not raise the aforesaid question of the Corporation having become defunct and non-functional in the year 1990 before the Division Bench of this court where the L.P.A. of Corporation challenging the abovementioned order of the Single Judge remained pending from 1993 till 06.07.1995 when the order of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench. Similarly in the Civil Appeal filed by the Corporation before the Apex Court no such plea was taken by the respondent-Corporation and its authorities and the award and orders of the High Court were affirmed by the Apex Court also vide order dated 20.11.1995.
32. In the aforesaid circumstances, the said plea of the Corporation having become defunct and non-functional as far back as in the year 1990 having not been taken by the Corporation and the respondents at the relevant time i.e. from 1990 to 1995, the said plea is absolutely frivolous and cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage, specially when the award of Industrial Tribunal dated 22.07.1988 in favour of the daily wage workers of the Corporation including the petitioners was affirmed up till the Apex Court. Thus the respondents cannot Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 28 legally deny implementation of the said award.
33. In addition to the above facts the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar sought legal opinion of Advocate General of Bihar in the matter, whereafter Advocate General of Bihar submitted his opinion dated 12.12.2000 holding that the authorities had no option but to issue directions for compliance of the award and accordingly the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar vide its order dated 10.01.2001 directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to regularize the services of all the remaining 34 daily wage workers including the petitioners. This was done about a decade after 1990 and hence the claim of respondent-Corporation and its authorities is absolutely unreliable.
34. So far the claim with respect to closure of respondent-Corporation is concerned, neither the Resolution of Council of Ministers dated 20.03.2003 nor the Resolution of Corporation dated 09.05.2006 showed that the respondent- Corporation had been closed. Hence, there was no occasion for the respondents-authorities to pass the impugned order of termination of petitioners‟ services dated 03.07.2007 specially when the process of revival and restart of Hajipur Unit of the Corporation had already started on 20.03.2007 which is fully Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 29 proved by materials on record and cannot be validly denied by the respondents and during this process the Council of Ministers had also approved the revival scheme on 29.09.2007, whereafter huge amounts were sanctioned for the Corporation for financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10. All these facts are quite apparent from the letter of Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar dated 04.02.2010 itself, which cannot be denied by any of the respondents. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that even today the Corporation is existing and the process of revival of its unit is continuing and funds are being pumped in the Corporation by the State Government. This completely demolishes the claim of Corporation.
35. It is an admitted fact that there is no closure of the Corporation even after more than five years of passing of the impugned orders and that the petitioners were workmen employed in the Corporation and had been in continuous service for not only one year, rather for several decades and hence section 25-F of the Act would squarely cover the claims of petitioners. According to which the workmen can be retrenched only after giving one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or one month wage in lieu of such notice as well as for appropriate compensation as provided Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 30 therein. It is to be noted that in the earlier Reference Case No.01 of 1987 in which award was prepared on 22.07.1988 with respect to all daily wage workers of the respondent-Corporation, the question involved there also was compliance of the provision of section 25-F of the Act.
36. Admittedly in the instant cases before passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 terminating the services of petitioners as daily wage workers, no such step as prescribed in section 25-F of the Act was taken by the authorities. Hence even if the reason given in the impugned orders dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-1 in all the above mentioned writ petitions) is correct the respondent-Corporation had to proceed in accordance with law i.e. Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, but admittedly the said provision not having complied the said impugned orders are nullity in the eye of law and are void ab initio and it has to follow reinstatement of petitioners and payment of their back wages, in accordance with the principles of law well settled by various judicial pronouncements.
37. The Apex Court in its decision dated 05.12.1983 taken in case of Gammon India Limited vs. Niranjan Dass reported in (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 509 had held as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-201231
" 3. It is not disputed that the pre-requisite for a valid retrenchment as laid down in Section 25-F has not been complied with and therefore the retrenchment bringing about termination of service is ab initio void. Viewed from this angle the award of the Industrial Tribunal was correct and unassailable and the learned single Judge was in error in interfering with the same. Undoubtedly, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restored the award for reasons of its own. However, for the reasons herein indicated, the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1970 is upheld and confirmed and this appeal must therefore fail and accordingly it is dismissed."
38. Subsequently on 03.03.2003 also the Supreme Court had passed its order in case of Pramod Jha and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2003 LAB.I.C. 1449, which is as follows:-
"10. We have given our anxious consideration to submission and counter-submission made before us in the light of the pleadings and undisputed documents available on record. We are of the opinion that the appeals are devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. The underlying object of Section 25F is two-fold. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one month's time available at his disposal to search for alternate employment, and so either he should be given one month's notice of the proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. Secondly, the workman must be paid retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been retrenched there should be no need for him to go to his employer demanding retrenchment compensation and the compensation so paid is not only a reward earned for his previous services rendered to the employer but is also a sustenance to the worker for the period which may be spending searching for Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 32 another employment. Section 25F nowhere speaks of the retrenchment compensation being paid or tendered to the worker along with one month's notice; on the contrary clause (b) expressly provides for the payment of compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. Payment of tender of compensation after the time when the retrenchment has taken effect would vitiate the retrenchment and non-compliance with the mandatory provision which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy behind would result in nullifying the retrenchment."
39. Recently on 11.04.2011 the Apex Court decided a similar matter in case of Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur reported in 2011 LAB.I.C. 2799 holding as follows:-
"13. The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.
14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
21. In Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Haryana (supra), the Court considered the effect of violation of Section 25-F, referred to various precedents on the subject Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 33 and held the termination of service of a workman without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F (a) and (b) should ordinarily result in his reinstatement.
25. In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the respondent engaged the appellant, who was already in its employment, as a Clerk for a period of six months on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. At the end of six months, the respondent passed another resolution dated 30.11.1995 and again employed the appellant for a period of six months from 1.11.1995 to 20.4.1996. This exercise was repeated in 1996 and the appellant‟ term was extended for six months from 1.5.1996. However, his engagement was discontinued w.e.f. 30.9.1996 without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation as per the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. It is true that the engagement of the appellant was not preceded by an advertisement and consideration of the competing claims of other eligible persons but that exercise could not be undertaken by the respondent because of the ban imposed by the State Government. It is surprising that the Division Bench of the High Court did not notice this important facet of the employment of the appellant and decided the writ petition by assuming that his appointment/engagement was contrary to the Recruitment Rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We may also add that failure of the Director, Local Self-Government, Punjab to convey his approval to the resolution of the respondent could not be made a ground for bringing an end to the engagement of the appellant and that too without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F(a) and
(b).
28. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the appellant is restored. If the respondent shall reinstate the appellant within a period of four weeks from today, the appellant shall also be entitled to wages for the period between the date of award and the date of actual reinstatement. The respondent shall pay the Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 34 arrears to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order."
40. In the meantime a bench of this court had also considered this aspect of the matter in its order dated 08.04.1994 passed in case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 249 in the following terms:-
"6. The Labour Court has also relied upon decisions reported in 1986 P.L.J.R., 873 and 1987 P.L.J.R. 1090. In these decisions this Court held that in case the initial appointment was invalid the concerned employee could not claim a writ of mandamus for payment of salary for the period he actually worked under the invalid appointment. These two decisions also do not even refer much less consider the mandatory nature of section 25F. These decisions have absolutely no relevance to the case in hand.
7. I am quite unable to follow how the question of illegal and invalid appointment could be imported in a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act. The idea of illegal or invalid appointments is quite foreign to the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(5) of the Act which defines „workman‟ does not have any such distinction and the definition is couched in the widest term. Any person including an apprentice doing any manual unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward would qualify as a workman notwithstanding whether the contract of employment was express or implied. Once having qualified as a workman all that is required for the application of section 25F is that the concerned workman should have been in continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year. In fact, the termination of employment of a workman on the ground that his initial appointment was not legal and valid itself Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 35 qualify as retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) as termination for illegal and invalid appointment has not been made an exception to the definition of retrenchment. This aspect of the matter has been considered in a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prabhudayal vs. Alwar Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. & ors., 1991 LIC, 944, wherein paragraph 6 of the judgment Their Lordships held as follows:
"The definition of retrenchment as given in the Act is wide and comprehensive to include all types of terminations of service unless the termination falls within any of the excepted categories mentioned therein. The petitioner‟s case is not covered by any of the exceptions contained in the definition of retrenchment. As such, the termination of the petitioner‟s service amounts to retrenchment."
8. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the aforesaid decision and I do not find the slightest hesitation in holding that the termination of service of the petitioner amounted to retrenchment and was statutorily required to be in compliance with the provisions of section 25F of the Act. I am, accordingly, constrained to interfere in the matter and I hereby do so. The impugned award, a copy whereof is at Annexure-10, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, Patna to examine the pleadings of the parties and, if necessary, to allow them to adduce evidence on the point and to record a finding of fact as to whether or not the provisions of section 25F of the Act were duly complied with by the management before terminating the petitioner‟s service. In case his services were terminated in contravention of section 25F of the Act, then it is needless to say, the termination order will be not est in the eye of law and the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with back wages unless there are other circumstances to be recorded in writing by the Labour Court so as not to grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages but some other reliefs."
41. In the instant cases it cannot be validly disputed Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 36 that the removal of the petitioners comes within the ambit of wide and comprehensive definition of retrenchment and they do not fall within the excepted categories provided in the definition of "retrenchment" under section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which was inserted by Act 43 of 1953 w.e.f. 24.10.1953. Thus the termination of petitioners service vide impugned orders dated 03.07.2007 would clearly amount to retrenchment, but that was done without compliance of the statutory requirements of section 25F of the Act, hence this court is constrained to interfere in view of the principle of law settled by the judicial pronouncements enumerated above.
42. considering the entirety of the aforesaid discussions, the materials on record as well as the settled principles of law, all these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders in all the said cases dated 03.07.2007, terminating the services of the petitioners are quashed, the respondent Corporation and its authorities are directed to reinstate all the petitioners with full back wages and other consequential benefits. They are also directed to immediately implement the Award dated 22.07.1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No.01 of 1987, which has been affirmed uptil the Supreme Court and accordingly Patna High Court CWJC No.1333 of 2008 (8) dt.19-12-2012 37 regularize the services of the petitioners as per the terms of the Award.
(S.N. Hussain, J.) Harish/-