- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 15-7-1996 given by respondent No. 1 in the following industrial disputes : Industrial dispute Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 46, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57 of 1990 and 113 of 1993 (total No. 41 ). All the employees who raised the aforesaid disputes were daily rated workers (daily wagers ).
(2.) CENTRAL Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi through its notification dated 1-1-1990 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court : "whether the demand of union to regularize the workmen (named below) of Betwa River Board, Rajghat Dam, Nandanpura, Jhansi against the post on which they are working with retrospective effect from the date of their appointment is justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled. " In all 41 notifications were issued and the above mentioned 41 industrial disputes were registered before Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. In every reference several employees were involved. Total number of employees was 606. The details of notification numbers and names of employees mentioned in each of the notification are given in the award, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The employees contended that they were working from the dates of their appointments continuously and were doing work of permanent nature. Date of appointment of each employee was different. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal held that : "these workers were employed for the purposes of construction of dam. " Immediately before the said finding it was held that : "thus, these daily rated workers were engaged for the purpose of construction of dam only and not by Betwa River Board. " The Tribunal also held that : "there is no dispute that at present these concerned workmen have continuously worked for 15 to 16 years (They were employed in between 1978 to 1986 ). I was also informed by the management that it would take five or more years for completion of project. " In penultimate para (para-33) tribunal held as follows : "in my opinion from the above analysis of facts it becomes clear that after meeting out objections of the opposite party management the concerned workmen have made out a case for regularization. This regularization will serve them as an umbrella to protect them from the policy of hire and fire and of course they will be entitled for wages and other facilities at par to those of other Central Government servants similarly placed. " In the last para it was held that : "the concerned workmen are not entitled for regularization from the date of their respective appointments. In view of above my award is that the opposite party management shall prepare a list of seniority of the concerned workmen and shall take steps for their regularization within one year from the date of publication of this award or otherwise these concerned workmen will be deemed to be regularized after one year from the date of publication of award By regularization they shall not be deemed to be entitled to equal, wages and other facilities at par to those of Central Government employees placed in similar circumstances. " The Tribunal mainly based its award upon the authority of the Supreme Court State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118. The said authority has now been over ruled by a Constitution Bench authority of the Supreme Court Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (3), 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 1806.
(3.) AT this stage it may be mentioned that similar references were made in respect of several work charge employees of the same Board, i. e. , Betwa River Board and similar directions as given, in the instant case were also given by the Tribunal in respect of those work charged employees. The said award was challenged through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4442 of 1997. However, meanwhile, the Board regularized their services hence the said writ petition according to learned Counsel for both the parties became infructuous and was dismissed as such on 21-8-2006. It may be mentioned that in this writ petition no stay order was granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in compliance of order of the Labour Court all the concerned employees (apart from those who have crossed the age of superannuation) are being retained and paid salary in accordance with the award even though services of all of them are no more required by the Board keeping in view the volume of the work learned Counsel has further stated that the position is that the work which may normally be discharged by one employee is being distributed to 4 or 5 employees (of course learned Counsel for employees has denied this assertion ). During arguments learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed that out of total 606 daily wagers in respect of whom references were made at present only about 475 are working and rest have either died or retired. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the project was completed in October, 2005 and now only the maintenance work remains.;