KAN SINGH, J—This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Viney Kumar Majoo and by it he questions the validity of an order dated 8-9 67 (Ex. 6 on record) passed by the Chief Engineer Project, Public Works Department (B&R), Rajasthan, retrenching certain Engineering Subordinates including the petitioner. In this order the petitioners name occurs at serial No. 3. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these:

Petitioner was an Engineering Graduate having obtained his degree in the year 1966. He came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (B&R), Project Organisation under an order of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R) Rajasthan dated 25-7-66. He was appointed in the grade of Rs. 120-5-155-10-185-205-10-285 EB/SB 225-10-285-335-12-1/2-385. He was given a starting salary of Rs. 225/- per month and he joined the appointment on 28th October, 1966. Being a Junior Engineer the petitioner was included in the category of Engineering Subordinates within the meaning of Rule 4(e) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960. The petitioner proceeded to say that he was senior to Servashri M. C. Singhvi, M.C. Tyagi, R.L. Chauhan, C.S. Mehta, M. C. Gupta, R. K. Gupta and S. K. Garg. These persons were originally impleaded in the writ petition, but as their services came to be retrenched during the pendency of the writ petition, their names were deleted. According to the petitioner, a seniority list of Engineering Subordinates was prepared and in the seniority list (Appendix-A) the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 17, while those of the erstwhile respondents No- 4 to 10 were shown below the petitioner at Nos. 20, 21, 27, 28, 31 and 32 respectively. On 31-7-67 an order was passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R) Project, Jodhpur, respondent No. 2, saying that on account of the abolition of two Divisions and 18 Sub-Divisions the services of certain Engineering Subordinates of the Project Organisation were retrenched with effect from 31-7-67. A list was appended to this order but no junior Engineer including the petitioner was listed for retrenchment. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2 on 8-9-67. Petitioner claims that he is a workman within the meaning of sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act" and consequently the order of his retrenchment has to fulfil requirements of the Act.

2. In challenging the validity of this order the petitioner contends that it violates secs.25F and 25G of the Act. The petitioner avers that although he had put in more than one years service as contemplated by the Act, neither any compensation as contemplated by sec. 25F of the Act was paid, nor were any wages in lieu of notice required by sec. 25 were paid, in that the requisite notice was not served on him. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned order was bad as persons junior to him had been retained when he came to be retrenched on 8-9-67 and this violated sec. 25G of the Act. In this context it was also contended that that the way in which petitioner was chosen for retrenchment while his juniors were retained at the time of retrenchment, he was denied equality of treatment and the order thus violated also Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is denied that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of sec. 2(s) of the Act. Consequently it is urged that secs. 25F and 25G were inapplicable. As regards the notice for retrenchment, it is stated that a notice was given and for that reliance is placed on the impugned order itself. The respondents deny that the petitioner can be said to have been in employment for a continuous period of one year so as to be able to claim the benefit of sec. 25F of the Act.

4. The first question that arises for consideration i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document