Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Raval on the basis of this factual aspect which has been narrated in the petition, replies and rejoinders submitted that it is an undisputed situation that two junior persons were continued at the time of termination, of the petitioners and no reasons have been given by the respondents at the time of termination of the petitioners and no reasons have been incorporated in the order of termination. In the termination, it is only mentioned that the petitioners' services are not required or needed by the respondents. During the services of the petitioners, the junior persons were appointed and they remained continue with the respondent and subsequently they were confirmed by the respondent. Therefore, it is clear case of discrimination, arbitrariness and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which is having mandate against the State Authority to act in any just, right and fair manner and not in arbitrary manner. He also submitted that in Para 5 of the rejoinder the names of such persons have been given by the petitioners at page 23. He also submitted that all these junior persons were subsequently appointed on the same post at petrol pump at Gandhinagar. Therefore, he submitted that the respondent has given reason for appointment of the, petitioners that because of suspension of some workmen they require the work, and therefore, the petitioners were appointed. Similarly, no reason has been given by the respondent while terminating the services of the petitioners. He also submitted that it is a burden upon the respondent to justify the termination of the petitioners when challenge to the termination of the petitioners is made by the petitioners on the ground of discrimination, arbitrariness, mala fide, the respondent should have disclosed the correct reason before this Court. But in the reply as well as the additional reply, respondents have not given any reason or any justification for terminating the services of the petitioners which hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14. He also submitted that the seniority of such employees is not kept and it is very difficult to maintain seniority of temporary employees because they were appointed in the entire Gujarat on various establishments. He also submitted that none of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been violated by the respondent. He also submitted that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in exercise of the powers by the respondent as daily-rated employees have no legal right to remain in service. He has relied on the decision in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 3657. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ratan Singh v. Union of India and Anr., reported in 1997 (11) SCC 396.

18. I have considered the submissions made by learned both the Advocates and also authorities which are cited by both the Advocates.

19. The question to be examined by this Court is legality and validity of termination order which has been passed by the respondent; whether the respondent has acted in arbitrary manner, discriminatory, colourable exercise of power, mala fide or not and whether the respondent has justified the termination of the petitioners or not.

20. Most of the facts which are mentioned in the petition, affidavit-in-reply and rejoinder are not in dispute. The date of appointment of the petitioners, date of termination of the petitioners and date of appointment of juniors to the petitioners and confirmation of the persons those who were subsequently appointed, are not in dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that two persons namely Kishanbhai H. Solanki who was recruited on 4-10-1990 and Karshanbhai S. Vankar was recruited on 12-11-1990 during the tenure of the petitioners and they were continued at the time of termination of the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondent that their services were also terminated along with the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that Hareshkumar N. Parekh was appointed on 3-12-1990 and Bipinbhai D. Bhatt was appointed on 16-7-1991 on the same post for the same work, same terms and in the same pay-scale as well as at the same place. Therefore, one question arises that what is the justification with the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners while retaining aforesaid junior persons and subsequently fresh hands means new persons were recruited in the place of the petitioners. One thing is very clear that the nature of the work which was being performed by the petitioners was permanent in nature. The petitioners were not appointed to any specific work nor they were appointed on any specific project. Initially, the petitioners were appointed on the basis of 29 days. Thereafter, no order of extension has been produced by the respondent because no such extension was given but they were remained in service upto 23-11-1990. In the impugned termination orders, no reasons have been given by the respondent and in the two replies filed by the respondent, the respondent is not able to justify the termination order of the petitioners. It is the duty of the respondent being a State Authority when their action is under challenge, they shall have to justify the termination orders of the petitioners as to why the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents while continuing the juniors to the petitioners working on the same post and same place. Therefore, apparently the termination of the petitioners amounts to discrimination, arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers. Absence of the reasons and justification by the respondent this Court is having no option except to believe the fact that the respondent remained silent behind the back of the petitioners which has become foundation to terminate the services of the petitioners. But the real reasons have not been disclosed by the respondent that clear intention that they have to face other consequences. Therefore, the respondent remained silent about the reasons and justification of termination of the petitioners purposely and not disclosed any reason for termination of the petitioners. The respondent has disclosed the reason for appointment of the petitioners that because some of the persons were suspended by the respondents working on the same post which required appointment of the petitioners. If the appointment of the petitioner has been justified but the termination of the petitioners is not justified by disclosing the reasons by the respondents. Therefore, something has been concealed by the respondent from the Court not to disclose the reason to the Court that terminating the services of the petitioners. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are applicable to the case of temporary employees or daily-rated employees if their services are terminated without any reason and without any justification while continuing the juniors in service on the same post and same place and subsequently the new persons have been recruited in the same post and same place and same terms.