Subsequently the appellant was declared a sick companypany by the BIFR.
By that Judgment the High Court has modified the award of the Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun, to the extent that the workmen, in whose favour the award had been made, were allowed to be companytinued in the service of the appellant employer till their superannuation, and if their services were number required they should number be terminated except in accordance with Industrial Law.
In the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the said award, the High Court upheld the companytention of the appellant that the respondents were number entitled to regularization in view of the well settled law laid down by this Honble Court in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. vs. Anil Kumar Mishra Ors.
The BIFR had also issued directions to the companypany to reduce its manpower in order to try to revive the companypany, but despite this situation the union started pressing and agitating for regularization of the aforesaid ten companycerned daily rated employees.
As against 1049 sanctioned posts, there were already 1299 employees working in the companypany at the relevant time.
The companypany also applied to the BIFR as it had become sick.
The aforesaid ten persons were paid wages according to the rates of daily wages, declared by the State Government from time to time, as agreed with the union.
From the year 1986 the financial position of the appellant companypany became critical as it was running on huge losses and hence its companyporate office issued stop ban order, banning any fresh recruitment appointments.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present dispute relates to the ten companycerned employees who were appointed as casual workers on daily rate basis for the reason that they were dependants of employees dying in harness.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.3862 of 2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
Since the appellant was already over staffed in all its departments, the said persons were given work in the nature of cleaning window panes, sweeping floors and such sundry jobs on companytract basis which work was number the work of the regular employees of the appellant company.
The failure of talks between the companypany and the union led to the reference of a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court in the year 1992 in the following terms Whether the action of the employer in number regularizing 22 workmen and number granting them wage scales and other benefits given to the regular employees is unjustified and or illegal Before the Labour Court, only 10 out of the 22 workmen appeared and filed written statement and therefore the award was passed only in respect of the said ten persons.
Such appointments were made by the appellant due to the persistent and prolonged agitation by the trade union since the appellant wanted to maintain industrial harmony, although there was numberrule policy for such companypassionate appointment in the service of the appellant companypany, which was already over staffed.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Uttaranchal High Court in W.P. No.3360 of 2001.
The High Court further directed that the workmen in question should be paid wages like the regular employees performing the work and duties in the appellant company.
