- (1.) These appeals are heard together as the similar facts and legal contentions would arise for our consideration. The Appellants, the Executive Engineer, CSD and Chief Engineer of Ram Ganga Dam Project, Kalagarh and the State of U.P. through Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, questioning the correctness of the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the Awards being ID No. 209/1988 and Reference Case No. 218/1993 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun and Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow respectively.
(2.) In Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010, the industrial dispute at the instance of the Respondent-workman got referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute between the parties with regard to the justification of termination/removal of workman by the Appellants. The Labour Court registered the references, given opportunity to both the parties to file their claim and counter claim and after conducting an inquiry recorded a finding of fact on the points of dispute referred to it holding that the termination order passed against the concerned workman is not justified. The said finding of fact is based on the pleadings and appreciation of material evidence on record. The correctness of the said finding is challenged before the High Court urging the ground that the said finding of fact is contrary to the factual and legal position that the concerned workmen have been appointed on temporary basis against the Project work undertaken by the Appellants for construction of the Dam in the year 1968, after the project work was over their services were terminated by the Appellants, that was the subject matter of dispute, the Labour Court without examining the factual aspect of the fact that the project work has come to an end, therefore, there is no work to employ the concerned workmen, therefore, they were retrenched after complying with the provisions and conditions laid down in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court after adverting to the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties has examined the correctness of the findings of fact recorded in the Awards by the Labour Court. The High Court has referred to the fact that on 8.05.2006, by an interim measure, it directed the Appellants herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was required to be paid to the workman without furnishing security, which has been received by the workman and consequently, partly allowed the petition and the Award was modified to the extent that the Appellants will reinstate the concerned workman on or before 10.03.2009 within four weeks from the date of 6.02.2009 including the back wages that has not been paid and further directed to reinstate the workmen and upon reinstatement, the workman is entitled to current wages. That order of the High Court is challenged in Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010 before this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 2010 invited our attention to the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court to show that the said finding is erroneous in law. Our attention was drawn to the Award passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 209/1988 wherein the Labour Court noticed that the High Court, on an earlier occasion, between the same parties, vide its judgment and order dated 25.09.2003 partly allowed the writ petition, filed by the Respondent herein, setting aside that portion of the Award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court had refused to reinstate the concerned workman in service along with back wages and remanded the matter back to the trial court for decision afresh with a further direction to the Labour Court that it should decide: (1) whether the disputed Project is still going on or not And (2) whether other workmen situated similar to the concerned workman therein are still working in the department or not and whether any person junior to the concerned workman has been adjusted on any other post On such remand, the Labour Court again examined the case afresh and answered the said questions against the Appellants herein holding as hereunder: "It is apparent from a perusal of records that there were several divisions in the disputed Ramganga Project. Whereas it is apparent from para wise report of the management which has been annexed with the application 15A dated 27.7.2005 that some of the divisions of the Project are still in operation. It has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 7 of this report that although construction works of Ramganga Project have come to an end, but three divisions which are looking after work of maintenance of Ramganga Reservoir are still in operation. In this manner, it has been accepted by the management itself that three divisions are still in operation. There is nothing on record to show that workman herein was appointed in any particular division of the project. Whereas it is apparent from letter of the Executive Engineer, Central Stores Division, Kalagarh dated 3.6.1978 which has annexed to application of the management that services of the Petitioner-workman were terminated due to acute shortage of work in the Ramganga Project. It has nowhere been mentioned in this letter that the work of particular division in which Petitioner-workman herein was appointed, has come to an end. Moreover as has been mentioned herein above that management has specifically admitted in paragraph 7 of their rejoinder filed along with application 15A dated 27.7.2005 that 3 of the divisions of Ramganga Project are still in operation. Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, it becomes undisputedly clear that work of Ramganga Project has not come to an end completely and three of its divisions are still in operation." The said finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court by answering to the questions formulated by the High Court in its remand order and held against the Appellants herein. The correctness of the same is challenged in the High Court urging certain grounds. The High Court in the impugned judgment did not find favour of the Appellants herein. Further, it is brought to our notice by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned workman in Civil Appeal No. 2796 of 2010 wherein the counter reply is filed. At para 10 of the said counter reply it has been specifically stated that in the similar circumstance as the Respondent-workman the Appellant has complied with the awards passed by the Tribunal in Reference Case Nos. 84 and 85 of 1998 and the same have been implemented, this fact is not disputed by the Appellants. In this matter the Appellant being the Department of Irrigation has accepted to treat the similarly placed persons at par in respect of other similarly placed persons in whose favour the Awards were passed by the Labour Court and in respect of others they have challenged the same in this Court, which action of them is wholly untenable in law as they have taken inconsistent stand in respect of similarly placed workmen, being the model employees.;