- (1.)HEARD Mr. R. Balasubramanium, learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents. Ordinarily, we would have adjourned the matter, but regard being had to the fact that the controversy is covered by the decision in Union of India and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union (2)1 , we have thought it appropriate to finally decide this appeal.
(2.)THE respondents preferred a Civil Writ Petition No. 12813 of 2004 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh with the following prayers: -
"(i) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.07.2004 and 3.8.2004 vide which the petitioners have been ordered for deployment to other unit by terminating their services from Western Base Workshop, with malafide intention to dislodge the petitioners from the present place of work. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the Western Base Workshop during the pendency of the present writ petition. (iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iv) filing of the certified copies of Annexures may kindly be dispensed with; (v) award costs of this petition to the petitioners. "

The High Court, after referring to the various orders and the draft scheme bearing No. Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB

(3.)(90) 9 - GE - II dated 2.2.2001 and further taking note of the earlier decision of the said Court in the CWP No. 8991 of 2001 (Avtar Chand and others Vs. Union of India ) decided on 23.01.2002, directed as follows:
"The petitioners had initially approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 8991 of 2001 and as already indicated by us, their writ has been disposed of directing the government to give finality to the draft scheme bearing No. Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB 04 (90) 99 - GE -II dated 2.2.2001, within six months from the date of the order and till the finality is given to the draft scheme the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated. While there is no doubt that the direction to frame draft scheme in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 1996 by H.K. Sema and P.C. Phukan, JJ., against which judgement, a special leave petition has been filed by the respondents, in this case, cannot be satisfied by the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5537 of 2003 titled Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union. The directions issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8991 of 2001 are two fold, namely (i) finalisation of the scheme and (ii) the retention of the petitioners in service until and scheme is finalised. The order of the Apex Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition relates only to the first part. The order of the Apex Court does not in any way modify or affect the second part of the order, which mandates that the petitioners' employment in the Wester Base Workshop, Pathankot remain protected until finalisation of the scheme."
4.The impugned order, as is clear, is based on the earlier decision and in the earlier decision, the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had placed reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Gauhati in a Writ Appeal. We think it apt to reproduce the paragraph from the order passed in W.P. No. 8991 of 2001, which reads as follows:
"Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy on which the petitioners have placed reliance is still at the draft stage and no finality has been given so far. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners disputes this proposition and draws our attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble D.B. Of Guwahati High Court in which this very scheme was produced before the Bench and relying up that scheme directions were given to the management for the regularisation of the services of the petitioners of that writ petition. "