- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The land of the petitioners was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) to set up a project known as "uttar Pradesh Petrochemicals Complex". A lot of hue and cry was raised by the land owners against the acquisition proceedings and eventually, a tripartite agreement dated 29-6-1998 was executed between the land oustees, the district authorities, and the Management of Gas Authority of India Limited. The agreement contained a stipulation that one member of a family would be given an employment. This condition of employment was incorporated as per the prevailing policy of the State Government. Based on the aforesaid, the petitioners were offered an appointment as "junior Fireman Trainee" in the project. The terms and conditions of the appointment was that the training would be for a period of two years and if the performance was found unsatisfactory, in that case, the period of training would be extended by six months. The trainees would be paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 4300. 00 plus canteen subsidy @ Rs. 400/- per month and that it was not obligatory on the part of the management to offer an appointment after the completion of the training period. The offer of appointment further stipulated that the management would retain the discretion to consider the trainees for a suitable absorption as per the terms and conditions of the absorption as laid down by the management, and if absorbed, the trainee would be placed in the minimum pay scale and that the training period would not be counted towards the service period. For facility, clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the offer of the appointment is detailed herein below: "it shall not be obligatory on the part of GAIL to offer any employment to the trainee on completion of the period of training. However, GAIL Management retains the discretion to consider the trainee for suitable absorption in the services of GAIL, subject to successful completion of training, performance on any interview/test (s) which may be conducted by the GAIL Management and on the terms and conditions of absorption as laid down. On completion of the period of training, the trainees may be absorbed at the minimum of the pay scale of the level/grade in which they are to be placed. "
(2.) THE petitioners contended that the aforesaid offer of appointment was accepted and upon the completion of the training period of two yours, the Management extended their training period by one year and thereafter, no letter of the extension of the training or for any other purpose, was issued and the management silently allowed the petitioners to continue as trainees in the project. It was submitted that the petitioners had been working since then continuously and that regular work was being taken from them and that they are performing the same work as done by the regular workers, and therefore, prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to absorb them as regular junior firemen and pay them a regular salary. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate as well as Shri H. N. Singh, the learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri Navin Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Siddhafth Singh, Advocate for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that upon the completion of their training, the management had allowed them to work and that regular work was being taken by the management which was the same work as performed by the regular workers, and therefore, there was no difference in the work performed by the petitioners as trainees with the work performed by the regular workers. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that they are working in the project continuously for a continuous length of time, and therefore, they are now liable to be absorbed as regular employees of the project. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the action of the management in keeping the petitioners as trainees and paying them only a consolidated stipend was not only arbitrary but also amounted to an unfair labour practice. It was also urged that the management had given the appointment to the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of their lands, and that such appointments was in the nature of a compassionate appointment which cannot be treated to be temporary in nature, and therefore, on this basis, the petitioners should be absorbed and should be treated as regular employees of the respondents.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the performance of the petitioners was not upto the mark, the training period was extended and that a Committee had been constituted to assess the performance of the petitioners which is under consideration. The respondents further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim absorption in the service of the answering respondents on the basis of their appointment letters. The respondents submitted that after the completion of their training, the petitioners had no right to remain in the service of the Company, but as a measure of good gesture and to avoid the pitiable situation of the petitioners, the respondents extended the training period, so that the petitioners could acquire the requisite training to enable them to compete with the other candidate at the time of the filling up of the vacancy. It was alleged that the land oustees are not entitled for an employment as the matter of right and having received the compensation, etc. under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners were, therefore, not entitled for an employment in the respondents establishment. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the offer of the training given to the petitioners does not give them any right of a regular employment and that the mere fact that they were continuing in the service of the respondents as trainees did not give them any indefeasible right for an absorption in the service. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners were appointed by a back door method and therefore, such appointments cannot be regularised. The tripartite agreement was executed under pressure, inasmuch as, the respondents were compelled to sign the agreement on the dotted line, which was against a public policy, and therefore, void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a decision of the Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. , 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : 2006 (4) SCC 1.;