Non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and improper discrimination between similarly situated persons render the termination of services invalid.

1. - All these 16 cases involve a common question of law and the facts involved are almost similar, therefore, they are being disposed by a common order. Out of these 16 petitioners, nine petitioners, namely, Prabhu Singh, Mangla Ram, Hanuman Ram, Satya Narain, Ramesh Chandra, Suresh Kumar, Shanker Lal, Hari Singh and Sohan Lal are Naka Guards; two petitioners, namely, Bhanwar Lal and Rajendra Singh are Nakedar, four petitioners, namely, Arun Kumar, Ranjeet Singh, Vimal Kumar and Mohd. Asad are sub-Nakedar and one that is Mohd. Jahid is Gajdar, who were under the employment of the Municipal Board, Nagaur. All of them had been employed before 31-12-1984. However, their services have been terminated by a notice dated 26-8-1986 with effect from 26-9-1986 on the ground that there had been a reduction of the posts and that the initial appointment of each of the petitioners was irregular. All these notices are said to have been offered to the petitioners respectively but each one of them is said to have refused and, therefore, they were dispatched by registered post on 26-8-1986. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the termination of the services of all these petitioners except the petitioner Mohd. Jahid, Gajdar on the grounds that compliance with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Services) Rules, 1963 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules') has not been made, that although the services of the petitioners had been thus terminated, persons similarly situated and even junior to the petitioners in their respective rank had been retained in service and thus an improper discrimination had been made between persons similarly situated and the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have thus been violated, that the services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that even after the termination of the services of the petitioners they should have been absorbed according to order No. F. 18 (A) integration DLB 217-494 dated 8-4-1986 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. So as the remaining petitioners are concerned only the last two contentions have been urged.

2. These petitions have been contested by the Municipal Board. In the first place a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioners have not exhausted their alternative remedy by way of a revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') which was a efficacious remedy and, therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On merits the learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Board supported the orders of termination, mainly on the grounds that as a matter of fact, the initial appointment of each of the petitioners was not in accordance with the Rules. They were appointed against the sanctioned strength that is the starling pattern, without budget provisions and appointments were made by the Chairman and not by the Board. It was also urged that continuing these persons so illegally and irregularly appointed, would cast an unnecessary heavy burden on the Municipal Board and it is not expected that the local body should be burdened like this.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. So far as the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy under Section 300 of the Act goes, the learned Counsel for respondent-Municipal Board has urged that when the statute provides for remedy which is efficacious the party concerned has to exhaust that remedy before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a number of decision of this Court, namely, SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 1856/81-Banshidhar v. Municipal Board, Jodbpur decided on 24-11-80 , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2581 Madan Lal v. Municipal Board, Jodhpur S.B C