The termination of a workman's service by an industry without compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is invalid and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

1. - The petitioner prays for quashing the order Annx. 3 dated August 12, 1987 by which the respondents terminated his service.

2. As per averments disclosed in the amended writ petition, respondent No. 1 viz. The Rajasthan State Text Book Board, Jaipur is an autonomous body registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1968 and came into existence vide Government order issued on 31-12-1973. The objects of the Board are multifarious as mentioned in the Memorandum of Association. Some of the objects are to prepare, edit, publish, print, stock, sell, the textbooks and to carry on the business as publishers, printers, sellers and distributors of text-books. It is thus an industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The Office of the Board is situate in Jaipur. It has its own PABX inside the office building. The petitioner was initially appointed as Telephone Operator on PABX on daily wages w.e.f. 17-1-1984. His services came to an end on 27-6-1984. Thereafter he was again appointed on the same post by order Annxure-2 dated 19-4-1986 on the consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner joined the post and continued to work on it. On 12-8-1987, his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 viz. the Secretary of the Board without assigning any reasons and by merely stating that his services were required no more. It is alleged that this termination of the petitioner's services amounts to retrenchment as defined in the Act. The retrenchment was made without making the compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The termination is, therefore, bad and inoperative. The respondents called some persons for interview for the regular appointment on the post of Telephone Operator. But the petitioner has not been called for interview. The petitioner approached the respondents for redressing his grievances but with no success. He has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside Annexure-3, to treat him continuously on service and to issue directions to the respondents to call him for interview.

3. The petition was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the Board is not an Industry, the petitioner's services were terminated as regularly selected candidate was to be appointed as Telephone Operator. The petitioner at the time of his appointment on 19-4-1986, gave an undertaking not to claim regular appointment nor to raise any dispute. It was also stated that the petitioner is not a workman as defined in the Act. A preliminary objection was raised that the alternative remedy to get the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the Act is available to the petitioner. He should first exhaust this remedy. The petitioner should, therefore, be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner.

4. The appointment of the petitioner on 19-4-1986 by order Annx. 2 and the termination of his service on 12-8-1987 by order Annexure-3 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner worked on the post of Telephone Operator on PABX of the respondent Board continuously from 19-4-1986 to 12-8-1987. He has thus worked for more than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the termination of his service on 12-8-1987.

5. The following questions arise for deliberation and decision in this petition:

(1) Whether, the respondent Board is an Industry as defined in the Act?

(2) Should the petitioner be taken to be a workman?

(3) Whether, the termination of the petitioner's service amounts to retrenchment and if so, whether the retrenchment is bad and inoperative? and

(4) Whether, the petition should be dismissed on account of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner?
6-7. We shall deal the these contentions at seriatim below. Taking the first contention of the petitioner, it was strenuously contended before us that the Board is an industry as defined in the Act.