R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these petitions raise common questions and have been argued together.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5328 of 1987 challenges the order dated 28th Sept. 1987 at Annexure "c" to the petition, passed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Building and Communications, Sub-Division No. II, Junagadh District Panchayat, terminating his services with effect from 31st October, 1987. A declaration is sought that the artificial breaks in the petitioners service were illegal and unconstitutional. A direction is also sought to absorb the petitioner permanently in service.

( 3 ) THE petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5586 of 1987, have sought identical reliefs challenging the orders dated 28/29th Sept. 1987 of the Deputy Executive Engineer, terminating their services from 31st October, 1987.

( 4 ) THE petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5328/87 was from time to time appointed for a fixed period of 29 days with a clear stipulation that on the expiry of 29 days, he will automatically stand relieved. Under different orders, he was appointed for a specific period for different works as work-charge employee. Admittedly, the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5586/87 were also given such periodic appointments, which they are describing as artificial breaks, in their petition. According to the petitioners, there has been enough work on the establishment to continue all the petitioners and there was no justification for terminating their services.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of these petitions, the only contention that was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the matters is that the termination of the services of the petitioners being in violation of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deserves to be struck down. It was argued that under the order terminating their services while giving one months notice, the petitioners were not ordered to be paid the compensation on the date on which their services would terminate, namely - 30th October, 1987. It is stated that as per the termination order, though the services of these petitioners were to stand terminated from 30/10/1987 and 31/10/1987 in the respective petition, they were required to collect the benefits under Section 25f of the Act on 7. 11. 1987. The learned Counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Workmen of Subomg Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union Vs. Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate, and anr. , reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 420, more particularly on paragraph 17 of the judgement, wherein, referring to Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Honble Supreme Court held that Section 25f of the Act prescribes the conditions precedent to a valid retrenchment of industrial employees and that the three conditions prescribed by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 25f constitute conditions precedent before an industrial workman can be validly retrenched. It was therefore contended that when the amount of compensation was required to be collected after the date on which the petitioners were to be released by the notice issued to them, there was no compliance with clause (b) of Section 25f of the Act, which requires compensation to be paid at the time of retrenchment.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court, 1206, in which it was held that "under Section 25f of the Act, a workman employed in any industry should not be retrenched until he had been given one months notice in writing, indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice had expired, or the workman had been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice". In that case, the notice dated 15. 11. 1958 was given to the effect that the addressees services were terminated with effect from 17. 11. 1958 and that he woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document