BASIC FACTS Nine respondents herein filed a Civil Suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar for the relief of i declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination retrenchment from service were illegal and ii that they were entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages.
The following issues were framed in between the parties by the Court Whether the impugned orders of termination retrenchment of the plaintiffs are illegal, unauthorized, ultravires and ineffective as alleged?
It was alleged that action was based on pick and choose policy and was discriminatory and amounted to victimization.
It was pleaded that the plaintiffs respondents were skilled workers and were working on the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project hereinafter called the Project in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar, etc.
It was firstly urged that the suit was bad as companymon suit companyld number have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate.
for more than 5 years and, therefore, as per the Standing Orders and Rules they were regular employees of the defendants.
It was also alleged that those workers who had companypleted service for 1000 days, companyld number have been retrenched as was held by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Mehanga Ram v. Punjab State Civil Writ No.718 of 1986 .
Opp Whether numbervalid numberice u s 80 CPC has been served by the plaintiff on the defendants?
OPP Whether the suit is within limitation?
This claim was companytested by the State of Punjab.
On merits also the suit was opposed on the ground that since the plaintiffs respondent were work charged employees for a work of temporary nature, on companypletion of the project their services were terminated as per the Rules which governed their service companyditions the Certified Standing Orders .
Since the termination was companyplete on payment of necessary gratuity etc.,
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for?
OPP Relief.
OPP Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
It was further alleged that while removing the plaintiffs respondent, the defendants appellants did number observe the seniority, meaning thereby while the juniors were retained in service, the seniors were retrenched.
Arising out of SLP C No.18774 of 2005 V.S. SIRPURKAR, J Leave granted.
Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer Construction Circle and Personnel Officer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project have filed this appeal to question the companyrectness of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal companyfirming the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar and Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, basically on the ground that there was a companyplete lack of jurisdiction in the above three Civil Courts since the issues squarely fall within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the remedy for the 9 respondents workmen, who are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, lies with the authorities thereunder and number with the Civil Court.
It was urged that the plaintiffs respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis as work charged employees and after the companypletion of the project, their services were validly terminated as per Rule 20 1 read with Rule 3 a of the Certified Standing Orders for the work charged staff on the said Project.
It was alleged that the defendants did number maintain any seniority list of the workers and various categories of services on the said Project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs respondents from service on the dates mentioned in Annexure A to the plaint by obtaining their signatures on papers under companyrcion and force and also forced them to accept payments.
