HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURECHHAniSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BCE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION No.2132 OF 2006 PETITIONERS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Agriculture Mantrataya Bhavran Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. AssistantSoil Conservation Officer Nationa! Water Shed Program Kududand, In front of Home Guards Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Rajkumar Maurya S/o Bodhram Maurya Village: Lachchanpur; Post Patharia Tehsii Mungeii District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Presiding OfRcer Labour Court Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25tn April, 2006) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 09-09-2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. 121/1DA/2000. (2) The case of the first respondent herein, Rajkumar Maurya, is that he was appointed as Chowkidar by the Department of Agriculture and he worked as such during the years 1992 to 1998. When the matter stood thus, the Assistant Soil Conservation OfRcer, National Water Shed Programme, Kududand, the second petitioner herein, orally refused employment to the first respondent w.e.f. 01-04-1998. Feeling aggneved :a^ •5 S^^SS ^s^ by the said action of the second petitioner, the flrst respondent initiated conciliation proceedings and on submission ofthe feilure report, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bilaspur for adjudication. (3) Before the Labour Court, the firet respondent flled his claim petition contending that he was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1992 and since then he had been continuously working as Chowkidar and his services were illegally terminated by the second petitioner by refusing emptoyment with effect from 01-04-1998 and that action of the second petitioner was in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short "the Acf). The petitionere herein filed their statement of counter claim. In their statement of counter claim, the petitioners contended that the first respondent was appointed on daily-wage basis and in the year 1998 they received a comptaint againstthe first respondent from Krishak Mitra Mandat. On the basis of the complaint received from Krishak Mitra Mandal about his style of functioning, the second petitioner refused employment to the first respondent. It was also contended by the petitioners that since the first respondent was a daily-wager, there was no legal obligation for the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act before terminating his services. (4) In support of the case, the first respondent entered e witness box and deposed what he has stated in his claim statement. The first respondent was not cross-examined nor any witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners. In the circumstance, the Labour Court, Bilaspur accepting the case of the first respondent and havjng opined that ^ -•5 the refusal of employment on the part of the second petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-1998 would tantamount to termination of his services and since that was done without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service. However, the Labour Court denied entire back-wages to the first respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the above award of the Labour Court, Bilaspur, the State-AuUiorilJes have preferred this writ petition. (5) I have heard learned Government Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Government Advocate would reiterate the same contentions which were taken in the counter claim statement filed before the Labour Court, in support ofthe writ petition. (6) ! am of the considered opinion that no exception could be taken to the impugned award passed by the Labour Court for more than one reason. !n the first place, as against the evidence adduced by Ifte first respondent in support of his claim, there is absotutsly no contra evidence adduced by the petitioners. The statement made by the first respondent on oath before the Labour Court remained uncontested. Even otherwise, it is fairiy admitted that the first respondent worked in the establishnront of the Department of Agriculture during the years 1992 to 1998. The dispute relates to the status of the first resoondent. When it is the case of the first respondent that he was appointed as Chowkidar on regular basis, it is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent was appointed as a daily-wager only. The stand taken by the petitioners in their pleading remainsd as a piece of pleading only without substantiating the same, whereas the evidence adduced by the first respondent to show that he —M was appointed as Chowkidar is not at all contested by the management by adducing any evidence. Secondly, the pet'rtioners are bound by postulates ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution. They can not practice the rule of hire and fire since that rule is obnoxious to the constitutional scheme and particulariy to the mandates of Article 14 of the Constitution. The first respondent had worked six long yeare in the establishment of Department of Agriculture and therefore, the very action of the second petitioner summarily in refusing the work to the first respondent on 01-04- 1998 without assigning any reason is ex facie illegat, smacks of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Thirdly, since the second petitioner wanted to terminate the services of the first respondent on the ground of misconduct alleged against him by Krishak Mitra Mandal, the law required that he shou!d have been apprised of the allegations made against him, given a fair opportunity to have his say in the matter and thereafterwards, an appropriate decision should have been taken. Furthermore, it was not expected of an ofRcer of the cadre of the second petitioner to orally terminate the services of an empioyee without giving any reasons. Although, the termination ofthe services of the first respondent is ex facie itlegal and violative of mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bilaspur has denied back-wages compietely to the first respondent. In that view of the matter, the petitioners in alt fairness ought not to have filed this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice 4.'^w^