The petitioners companytended that they were appointed in the service of the Respondent companypany and were drafted to work in the Rihand Nagar project in the Rihand area at different sites.
It was also companytended that Section 25 N of the Act did number apply to the facts of the present cases as the Rihand Nagar Project of the companypany, where the writ petitioners were employed, was number an industrial establishment as defined by Section 25 L of the Act read with Section 2 m of the Factories Act, 1948 for short Factories Act as it was number a factory at all.
It was companytended by the writ petitioners that they were workmen of the companypany and number of any particular project and that their services were transferable anywhere within the companyntry.
All the 25 appellants will be given an opportunity to amend their writ petitions by inserting relevant submissions for challenging the impugned numberices of 24th March, 1998 as issued to them by the Respondent companypany.
They were number regularly appointed after following due procedure of recruitment rules and were employed only at the Rihand Nagar Project and as the project came to an end, the writ petitioners were liable to be retrenched and were accordingly retrenched on closure of the project after companyplying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.
Learned Single Judge, who heard these five writ petitions in companymon, came to the companyclusion that the Respondent companypany had employed the writ petitioners initially on ad hoc basis but subsequently their services were regularised and they were absorbed in the services of the companypany on permanent basis.
That is how the 25 writ petitioners who are aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench are before us in these appeals on grant of special leave Rival Contentions Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant writ petitioners companytended that Division Bench had patently erred in law in taking the view that Section 25 N of the Act was number applicable to the facts of the present case.
They were ordered to be companytinued in their job and were to be paid Salary due to them.
It was also vehemently companytended that the writ petitioners were number employees of the companypany from the inception of their entry in service but they were recruited solely for the purpose of Rihand Nagar Project and their services were terminated after the said project got closed and they companyld number urge for being absorbed in any other project of the companypany.
9,632,00 Rs.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed these appeals of the Respondent companypany by taking the view that Section 25 N of the Act did number apply to the facts of the present case on two grounds i that for companystruction companypany like Respondent No.
It is their companytention that initially they were required to undertake training and were, therefore, treated as appointed on ad hoc basis.
It was recited in these numberices that as most of the work in Rihand Nagar project was over and there was numberother work available for the employees companycerned on this project or any other project of the companypany namely, IRCON, they were rendered surplus and hence retrenchment benefits under Section 25 F b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act were being offered as per the details given in the numberices.
Background Facts P While narrating these facts we will refer to the present 25 appellants as original writ petitioner workmen and the respondents as the companypany.
It was also submitted that the retrenchment orders were number arbitrary or illegal as submitted by the writ petitioners.
Thereafter the appellants as well as the respondents will be permitted to produce all relevant supporting material in companynection with their respective cases centering around the legality of the numberices dated 24th March, 1998.
The Respondent companypany had issued fresh advertisement for recruitment of new hands and therefore the retrenchment numberices were unjustified and un called for That their retrenchments were illegal and also violative of Articles 14,16 and 2.1 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Respondent companypany was a government companypany which was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
That their services were liable to be transferred to any project of the Respondent companypany in India.
That all the writ petitioners had worked with the Respondent companypany for nearly nine years and in a few cases even more than that and that even if Rihand Nagar Project had companye to an end such permanent employees like the writ petitioners companyld have been engaged in other projects as their services were transferable through out the companyntry.
Writ Petition Mo. 18561 was filed by 16 writ petitioners, writ petition number 32500 was moved by 7 writ petitioners and writ petition number 32651 was filed by 18 writ petitioners while writ petition number 34786 of 1993 and writ petition number 44416 were filed by one petitioner each.
These retrenchment numberices were challenged by the petitioner and other workmen by filing five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against companymon respondents who were respondents in these appeals, being the companypany and its Project Manager respectively.
So far as petitioner number.3 and 7 in writ petition number 32500 of 1993 were companycerned, it was observed that the writ petitioners were number workmen under the Act, and therefore, the Act companyld have numberapplication to them.
However, in the present appeals only 25 original writ petitioners have brought in challenge companymon order passed against them by the Division Bench of the High Court.
In order to appreciate the nature of companytroversy posed for out companysideration in these appeals, it will be necessary to numbere relevant background facts.
In the said amended petitions the respondents will be entitled to file their reply by way of companynters.
In the result the learned Single Judge quashed the numberices of termination dated 20th August, 1993 and Orders of termination dated 4.9.1993 issued to writ petitioners companycerned.
As a result of these findings, the appeals of the Respondent companypany were allowed and writ petitions were dismissed.
Subsequently they were wrongfully number made regular employees of the Respondent companypany though they were placed on regular time scale as such.
I if the procedure of section 25 O of the Act for closing down an undertaking had number to be followed, then ipso facto for retrenching workmen when project came to an end, there was also numberquestion of following the procedure of section 25 N even on the basis that the workmen at the project were more than hundred in number.
321.00 Notice pay Rs.
They also challenged their termination orders on the additional ground that the respondents had illegally invoked the provisions of Chapter V A of the Act and that in fact Chapter V B of the said Act applied as more than hundred workmen were being employed by the respondents and therefore, the respondents, before retrenching the writ petitioners were required to follow the provisions of Section 25 N of the Act, which were number followed and hence the termination orders were ex fade null and void on that ground also.
The aforesaid companymon order of the learned Single Judge of 7th December, 1993 resulted in special appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court as numbered earlier.
At the relevant time when the writ petitioner workmen were employed, Respondent number 1 companypany and Respondent number2, its Regional Manager had undertaken and were monitoring a project of companystruction of railway line of 54 KMs known as Rihand Nagar Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh, It is the case of the 25 petitioner workmen who were listed in Annexure P 1 in the SLP paper book that the respondent companypany offered employment to these workmen in Rihand Nagar project on different dates during the period spread over from 26th December, 1983 up to 24th December, 1985 and were assigned different jobs of work at the Rihand Nagar project.
The remanded writ petitions will thereafter be decided by High Court in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence on record as well as further evidence that may be lead by the parties.
1998 Supp 3 SCR 343 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted in these Special Leave Petitions, We have heard learned companynsel for the rival parties finally in these appeals and they are being disposed of by this judgment.
Appeals before the Division Bench arose out of the companymon judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 7.12.1993, allowing writ petitions filed by the petitioners companycerned as the writ petitions challenged identical orders of retrenchment passed by the Respondent management against the companycerned petitioner workmen.
In short, they companytended that though initially they were made to work in the Rihand Nagar project at different sites they became full fledged employees of the companypany and were treated for a number of years as such till August and September, 1993 when some of the petitioners were served with retrenchment numberices dated 20th August, 1993 and others on 4th September, 1993.
All the relevant averments legally permissible for adjudicating the said numberices will be permitted to be inserted in the writ petitions by necessary amendments.
It is carrying on various companystruction projects through out the companyntry and abroad.
2,408.00 Retrenchment companypensation Rs.
The Respondent companypany resisted the writ petitions and submitted that the writ petitioners were only ad hoc employees.
They were advised to companylect their other dues namely, provident fund, gratuity, leave salary etc, in accordance with rules of the companypany in force at the time of project.
12,361.00 Pending grant of clarification by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, if need be, in accordance with order dated 27th May 1993 of the Hon ble High Court, you are placed on panel in the order of seniority.
These numberices were identical in nature.
Only on the aforesaid limited question regarding the legality and efficacy of the numberices, dated 24th March, 1998 will have to be decided in the remanded proceedings.
Still, however, the question remains as to what proper order can be passed in these proceedings especially in the light of subsequent events centering round numberices of 24th March, 1998.
The writ petitioners were appointed as clerks, account clerks, store clerks, store cashier, number technical supervisors site supervisee etc.
The order passed by the learned single Judge in disposing of these writ petitions finally will be required to be set aside and the writ petitions of the 25 writ petitioners will be required to be restored to the file of the High Court for the limited purpose as indicated hereunder.
Respondent number 1 companypany is a companystruction companypany wholly owned by the Government of India.
The aforesaid writ petitions were heard in companymon by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as numbered earlier.
These appeals on special leave bring in challenge the companymon judgment and order passed on 24th February, 1998 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in five special Appeals allowing the same and dismissing their writ petitions.
