( 1 ) A short but interesting question arises in this petition as to whether daily rated labourers on the Nominal Muster Roll of the Public Works Department (Irrigation) engaged for the purposes of diverse works in connection with construction and maintenance of medium size irrigation dam undertaken may the State Government as permitted by the Union Government with the assistance of the World Bank can be said to be workmen within the definition of the term as given in sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The question arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE State Government had sought permission of the Union Government in 1972 for construction of Amli Dam over the river Ver in Mandvi taluka of Surat district. The Union Government granted the necessary administrative and technical sanction under the recommendation of the Central Water Power Commission in about April 1979 having estimated cost of Rs. 64. 419 million. The object of the construction of the dam inter alia was to provide (i) irrigation facilities (ii) flood control and (iii) protection to the people residing in the vicinity of the river concerned. The State Government acquired land in all admeasuring about 553 hectares for the dam and about 140 acres for channel. The capacity of reservoir was estimated to be of 37. 54 million c. m. and the irrigation facilities envisaged were to cover about 3644 hectares of agricultural land.

( 3 ) THE Deputy Executive Engineer incharge of different sub-divisions of the Project engaged from time to time daily rated workers under oral orders and accordingly petitioners No. 2 to 17 were engaged under oral orders and were placed on what is known as Nominal Muster Roll maintained by the Irrigation Department of the PWD of the State Government which are meant for recording presence of the labourers engaged for a particular work in connection with the dam construction. Petitioner No. 1 is the P. W. D. Employees Union. Petitioners No. 2 to 9 11 15 and 16 were working at the dam site under Deputy Executive Engineer Sub-Division I at Mandvi for taking safety measures for dam during monsoon season. Petitioner No. 10 was working in Channel Works (Quality Control Site) under the Deputy Executive Engineer incharge of Sub-Division No. II at Mandvi. Petitioners Nos. 12 13 14 and 17 were engaged for rehabilitation works under the Deputy Engineer incharge of Sub-Division No. IV at Mandvi.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have put in services for periods varying between one year to about 11 years but admittedly all of them have completed continuous service of 240 days in a year. The services of the first set of the petitioners working under the Deputy Engineer incharge of Sub- Division I were terminated by the two impugned notices of 17th and 19/09/1984 with effect from 30/09/1984 However Petitioners Nos. 4 and 11 were again employed with effect from 5th and 6/10/1984 respectively. The services of the second set of employees working under the Deputy Executive Engineer Sub-Division II were terminated with effect from 15/06/1984 and that of the third set of employees working in Sub Division IV were terminated with effect from 25/06/198 4/08/1984 10 August 1984 and 4/09/1984 respectively by orders of the same date that is 25/07/1984. The petitioners have therefore moved this Court for appropriate writs orders and directions to quash and set aside the impugned terminations and for enjoining the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and treat them as if they continued all along in services and to pay them full back wages.

( 5 ) THE terminations have been impugned broadly on two grounds namely they were bad in law and void ab-initio inasmuch as they were passed in clear violation of the mandatory provision contained in sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and in any case they were arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) THIS petition has been resisted at the ad