Termination of temporary employees does not invoke Article 311 protections, and differing treatment based on length of service is permissible under employer's regulations.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the PUNJAB COURTS ACT , 1918 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1918 Act") and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. The correctness of the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by both the Courts below, while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) for the grant of declaration that the order dated 30.12.1983 terminating his service is illegal, has been assailed by the defendants in this regular second appeal.

3. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and on perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below along with the requisitioned record, the following issue arises for adjudication:-

"Whether the principle of "Last Come First Go" is applicable particularly when the services of the temporary employee on the ground of unsuitability is dispensed with in accordance with the terms of the employment/regulations or rule governing the employment?"

4. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The respondent was appointed as a Teacher on a purely temporary basis in the Islamia High School, Malerkotla, run by the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which has been constituted under the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1954 Act"). He was removed from the service on 30.12.1983, citing that his service is no longer required. He filed a suit for declaration that the order dispensing with his services is illegal, ultravirus, unconstitutional, malafides, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. It has been found that the employees of the Board are entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not available to the employees of the Board. This fact is conceded by the learned counsel representing the respondent in his written submissions.

5. Both the Courts below have held that the principle of "Last Come First Go" has not been followed as there were as many as 12 junior employees who were retained in service. It has further been held by the First Appellate Court that in fact, the services of the respondent has been terminated as a punishment, therefore, without holding the departmental inquiry, it was not permissible to dispense with the services.

6. The learned counsel representing the parties have filed their respective synopsis with the gist of their arguments. The contention of the learned counsel representing the appellant are as under:-

"1. Whether the employees of the Punjab Wakf Board can be held entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, or not?

Both the learned Courts below have held that the services of the plaintiff-respondent are regulated by Article 311 as Punjab Wakf Board is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. So far as the latter aspect is concerned regarding the Punjab Wakf Board being a State within the meaning of Article 12, there is no doubt. However, the former part recording the finding that the services of the plaintiff are regulated by Article 311 of the Constitution is inherently and fundamentally perverse and illegal. This proposition of law has been well settled, and no more res-integra. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.L. Agarwa