G.R.MAJITHIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS Sarvshri Sukhdev Raj, Avtar Singh, Parkash Chand, Banta Singh, Sohan Singh, Balwant Singh, Sohan Lal and Nikku, who are employees of Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short, the Board), Irrigation Wing, have sought a mandate to the respondents to regularise their services after they had put in more than five years' service, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioners say that they are working in the Irrigation Wing of the Board. They have been employed on one project or the other of Irrigation or the Power Wings of the Board for the last more than 20 years. They were working in the Irrigation Wing in the year 1984 when the Irrigation Wing with its works and material were transferred to the Power Wing of the Board. In the year 1986, the Board again decided to re-transfer the petitioners to its Irrigation Wing. An order was issued that the seniority would be reckoned from the date of their joining the Irrigation Wing. They say that in an identical case, the work-charged employees of Hydel Works of Anandpur Sahib, who were sought to be retrenched after they had put in more than five years' service, challenged the action of the Irrigation Department in C. W. P. No. 718 of 1986 and this Court laid down the criteria for regularizing the services of those employees. On these premises, the petitioners have sought the following directions to the respondents: " (i) To treat the petitioners in continuous service from the date they were appointed in the Bhakra Beas Management Board and to give all benefits in this regard, including the protection of service and protection of pay. (ii) To consider the petitioners as continuously working and regularizing them after they have completed five years of service and then making a seniority list of the petitioners according to their entitlement in their respective cadres from the date of their appointment. (iii) To restore the position of the petitioners Parkash Chand and Avtar Singh to the posts they were holding and not to grant any promotion or benefit to the persons who are actually junior to them but for the order Annexure P. 5 in the Irrigation Wing of the Bhakra Beas Management Board. (iv) To pay arrears of pay, with interest, to the petitioners. " Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is pleaded therein that the petitioners were the work-charged employees of the Beas Construction Board constituted by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (Act 31 of 1966) (for short, the Act), for the execution of the Beas Project. The Act provided that when the components of the Beas Project under execution by the Beas Construction Board are completed, they shall be transferred to the Bhakra Beas Management Board, a statutory body constituted under Sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act, and when all the components of Beas Project have been so transferred, the Beas Construction Board shall cease to exist. When the Beas Project's construction was nearing completion, the petitioners through their respective Unions approached the Supreme Court through a group of writ petitions claiming their transfer along with transfer of completed components of the Beas Project from the Beas Construction Board to the Board. These group of writ petitions were disposed of by the Supreme Court through the judgment reported as Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 115. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners and similarly situated employees had no right to be transferred in the services of the Board and their services were liable to be retrenched by the Beas Construction Board on the completion of the Beas Project, but they would be entitled to retrenchment benefits under the industrial legislation. The petitioners along with other similarly situated employees were served with retrenchment notices on completion of the works of the Beas Project under the Beas Construction Board. They again approached the Supreme Court through their respective Unions through C. W. P. No. 103 of 1984 titled Beas Sutlej Link Works Ekta Mazdoor Union v. Beas Construction Board and Ors. . Similarly, another writ petition i. e. C. W. P. No. 484 of 1984 by the Workers Action Committee, Pong Dam, Talwara against the Beas Construction Board was filed. These writ petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitioners were discharged from services of the Beas Construction Board (Civil Irrigation Wing) and they were paid all retrenchment benefits like retrenchment compensation, gratuity, etc. Subsequently, the petitioners were employed afresh in the Power Wing of the Board in its Water Transport section. The Water Transport Section is proposed to be transferred to the Irrigation Wing of the Board along with the employees, and the modalities for such transfer are being worked out. It is admitted that on December 17, 1974 instructions for regularizing the services of those work-charged employees who had completed five years' service as such were issued and in the light of this decision of the Punjab Government C. W. P. No. 718 of 1986 was decided by this Court. The instructions issued by the Punjab Government arc inapplicable to the Board, which is an independent statutory body constituted by the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 79 of the Act empowers the Board to employ such staff as it may deem necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions and Sub-section (9) of Section 79 empowers the Board to frame service conditions of its employees.
(3.) ADDITIONAL affidavit dated August 21, 1991, was filed by Shri S. K. Kapoor, Additional Secretary, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh, wherein it is stated that the Board, on reconsideration of the matter, had decided not to transfer the Water Transport Section from its Power Wing to the Irrigation Wing along with the employees. The employees of the Water Transport Section shall continue to be the employees of the Power Wing of the Board. They shall simply work under the Irrigation Wing on "job order" basis. It is further stated therein that the Board had taken a policy decision to convert all the existing workcharged posts in the Board into regular posts vide Memo No. 5g935-41/pd/u14/88/r5, dated November 18, 1988, issued by the Additional Secretary of the Board to all Chief Engineers in the Board. All the work-charged employees were served with a notice Under Section 19-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking their option for coining over to the regular establishment on the terms and conditions set out in the notice. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4, namely, Sukdev Raj, Avtar Singh and Banta Singh, did not opt for coming over to the regular establishment. They conveyed their refusal through communications dated June 30, 1988, June 29, 1988 and June 29, 1988, respectively. Petitioners No. 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely, Sohan Singh, Balwant Singh, Sohan Lal and Nikku, opted for coming over the regular establishment and are in the regular establishment of the Board. Petitioner No. 1 retired from service in work charged capacity on April 30, 1991 and petitioner No. 3 retired from the service of the Board before the introduction of the scheme for regularisation of the services.;