Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 25: The High Court has held the removal of about 50 Daily Wagers (DWs) in J&K Cements (Company) valid and dismissed their appeal challenging the writ court verdict whereby their removal was upheld.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem while dismissing their appeal said that they were engaged only on a daily wage basis, without any regular recruitment process, and their engagement was explicitly conditional and temporary, subject to approval by the Board.
“The Company, being a public sector undertaking functioning on its own financial resources, was facing acute fiscal constraints and was compelled to close its operations following the directions of the Pollution Control Board. In such circumstances, the action of the Company in discontinuing the services of the appellants cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”, read the judgment.
The court turned down the contention raised by these appellants that similarly situated employees of the Company were deployed in Government departments after closure of the cement unit where they were working. “The Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 was issued in respect of certain categories of regular or permanent staff of the Company, and not for daily wagers or muster roll workers and therefore, cannot claim parity with those employees who stood on a different legal and factual footing”, the court said.
The DB while holding the judgment of Single Judge as valid said the writ court has rightly held that the appellants had no vested right to continue in employment and that their disengagement was neither arbitrary nor in violation of any statutory or contractual provision.
“The observation made by the Single Judge that the appellants would be given preference in case the Khrew Plant is revived in the future sufficiently safeguards their limited equitable interests. We, therefore, find no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned judgment of writ court warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent appeal”, DB concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
