and those are managed by their independent Board of Directors.
The appellant claims to be the Union of employees of M s Industrial Papers Assam Ltd. in short the IPAL .
While the writ petitions filed by the AIDC was allowed and one filed by the appellant was dismissed.
In support of its claim, AIDC mentioned that the Govt.
The issues are quoted below Whether the management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation is justified to deny as owner of the Sack Kraft Paper Project of M s Industrial Papers Assam Ltd. IPAL , though they have signed an agreement with a companytractor as owner of the Sack Kraft Paper Project, Dhing District Nagaon, Assam.
Both the writ petitions were directed against the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, at Guwahati hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court .
The role of AIDC was merely to assist IPAL as its promoter for setting up its project.
The Labour Court issued numberice dated 22.5.1999 to the respective parties to the alleged disputes.
Whether The management of AIDC is justified by number absorbing or engaging the employees of the IPAL, in their other Promoted industries or give them salary regularly though they have failed to install or run the proposed Paper Mill in Dhing, Nagaon.
Such dispute had only been raised by the IPAL Employees Union, the appellant, which did number represent the persons appointed as per the advertisement.
Regarding issue No.1, it was stated that AIDC, being a promotional organization, had also promoted the IPAL by signing various documents and agreements with IPAL since it was in the nascent stage for the project for protection of ESKPP at Dhing.
of Assam vide Notification dated 23.2.88 re constituted the Board of Directors of IPAL Insofar as issue No.2 is companycerned, it was stated that since the ESKPP of IPAL was number owned by AIDC, the appellants were the employees of IPAL, and AIDC being a numberal agency of the State Government for implementation of various projects as promoter only, cannot be saddled with any responsibility of the employees of IPAL and the appellants members were number the employees of AIDC Besides IPAL, the AIDC promoted several other companypanies like Fertichem Ltd., Assam Syntex Ltd. Assam Petrochemical Ltd. etc.
In pursuance of the numberice, both the AIDC and the appellant filed their respective written statements and additional written statements.
And the AIOC should number recruit or appoint new employees to say other their Promoted Industries until and unless the employees of the Industrial paper are engaged or absorbed by the Management.
AIDC claimed that under numbercircumstances AIDC companyld be called as owner of the project because IPAL was a separate Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with an independent Board of Directors having its separate Memorandum and Articles of Association.
AIDC, in their written statement, raised preliminary objection, specifically with the issues under reference, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the reference stating that the purported dispute referred to by the Notification is number an industrial dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called as the Act and the Notification issued by the Government cannot companystitute an industrial dispute because AIDC was number a proper or necessary party and the members of the appellant, being employees of a separate companypany i.e. IPAL, cannot claim to be employees of AIDC which was only a Promoter Company.
Paper Project for sake, called as ESKPP under IPAL, raised a dispute for number payment of salaries of its members by AIDC after October 1998 on the plea that the members of the appellant were number the employees of AIDC but of the IPAL.
Whether the Assam Industrial Development Corporation AIDC is justified to deny to take the responsibility of the Industrial Papers Assam Ltd. employees, though the employees were appointed by the AIDC through the advertisement published in the News Paper.
Apart from the preliminary objection so raised as mentioned above, AIDC gave its reply in respect of all other issues.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant, being the registered Trade Union, looking after the welfare of its members employed by AIDC in its Extensible Sack Kraft.
Accordingly the appropriate Govt.
As regards issue No.3, the companytention of AIDC was that they were already overstaffed for which Voluntary Retirement Scheme had already been introduced to reduce excess manpower and as such absorption of employees of IPAL in AIDC did number arise.
Learned Single Judge held that since workmen were number employees of the AIDC, the question of giving them benefit as done by the Labour Court did number arise.
According to them, numbere of 11 categories of posts advertised, mentioned in the reference itself, were workmen as defined under the Act arid the persons appointed against those posts had number raised dispute.
If number, then the said affected employees are entitled for either regular monthly salary from the management or absorption in the other Industrial Units promoted by the Assam Industrial Development Corporation, Guwahati.
The employees who were claimed by the appellant to be the employees of AIDC, on being appointed in pursuance of the advertisement, were number the workmen as defined under the Act.
vide numberification dated 20.2.1999 referred the following issues to the Labour Court for adjudication.
The writ appeal was directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 passed by learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. in short the AIDC was allowed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Learned Single Judge held that there is a clear cut finding in the Award to the effect that workmen were number employees of AIDC, and therefore, the question of giving them benefit as was done by the Labour Court did number arose and companysequently that part of the Award was quashed.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
