D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this writ is for quashing the award dated 28th of February, 2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 1998, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has held that the Respondent -workmen were entitled for regularization of then services and other benefits at par with regular appointees.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Central Government undertaking in the Department of Heavy Industries and registered as a Company under the Companies Act. It has employees of different categories in its different units. The employees of the petitioner -Company formed a cooperative Society of their own under the name of H.E.C. Employees Consumers Co -operative stores' registered under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Co -operative Society Act, 1935 for the purpose of meeting their requirement of regular supply of ration items and consumer goods at Government controlled prices. The Cooperative Stores is governed by its own Governing Body in accordance with its own bye -laws. It had opened markets and grinding flour mills the vicinity of H.E.C. township for the purposes of running its business of Co -operative stores. It had employed its own employees. However, the business of the Cooperative Stores could not succeed and it started incurring huge losses. The Managing Committee of the Cooperative Stores approached the Labour union, recognized by the H.E.C., to find out some solution so that the employees of the Cooperative Stores could be saved from retrenchment. The Union approached the Management of the H.E.C. and involved the conciliation machinery to sort out the problem of the Cooperative Stores. In the Conciliation proceedings, a Tripartite Agreement, involving the Management of the H.E.C., the H.E.C. workers' Union and the employees of the Cooperative Stores, was entered on 19.06.1990 in respect of 53 persons as regular employees and 16 others, who were on the muster roll of the Cooperative Stores. The understanding arrived at in the agreement was as follows: (a) Based on the principle of seniority in their respective category 38 regular employees of the H.E.C. Consumer Cooperative store will be absorbed as regular employees of H.E.C. with effect from the same date. (b) Those employees of H.E.C. Consumer Co -operative store who applied for better prospect in. H.E.C. and whose name found place in the list of candidates (already selected) will be absorbed as regular employees of H.E.C. (c) The remaining employees who are in the roll of H.E.C. Consumer Co -operative stores (regular and muster roll) or 01.07.1970 and are left unabsorbed will be absorbed as employees of H.E.C. in corresponding status within three months from the date of agreement. In terms of the Agreement, the remaining employees of the Cooperative stores, were also absorbed as regular employees of H.E.C. (Sic) due course. However, the stand of the Management was that the (Sic) for absorbing the employees of the Cooperative stores was made as a (Sic) time offer with a clear stipulation that the employees of the Cooperative Stores who might be appointed after the date of agreement/settlement would not be considered for employment in the petitioner -Company (Sic) would they be entitled for any other benefit from the petitioner -Company. Despite this, the employees of the Cooperative (Sic) who were appointed subsequent to the date of the above -refer Agreement, (altogether 44 in number), raised a demand for the absorption under the Petitioner -Company by way of regular appointment and pay -scales according to the work and other benefits under petitioner -Company. On refusal by the Company they raised an Industrial dispute, through the Labour Union. The dispute was referred by the (Sic) Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The (Sic) reference was as follows: Whether the workmen Shri N.K. Pandey and 43 others are entitled for regular employment, pay -scales according to work and other benefits in H.E.C. Ltd., Dhurwa, Ranchi? If so, since when? The claim of the workmen for their regular appointment, pay -scales according to work and other benefits in H.E.C. Ltd. was based on the following grounds: After the petitioner -Company was established, it had employed about 22,000/ - employees and had also constructed a township for its employees, contiguous to its factory nearby. For the benefit of its employees, the petitioner -Company had established Canteen, Hostels and Shops within the township so that its employees may got essential commodities at Government controlled rates. The petitioner -Company got the Employees Cooperative Stores, registered in the name and style of H.E.C. Employees Consumers Co -operative Stores Ltd. Though the Cooperative Stores had its own bye -laws but it was never acted upon, since the petitioner -Company had full financial and managerial control over the Cooperative Stores. On 01.07.1970, the Management of the petitioner -Company took over control of Management of the Cooperative Stores. Thereafter, in the same year, a large number of employees, working in the Cooperative stores were transferred to different units of the petitioner -Company, namely, Foundry Forge Plant, Heavy Machine Building Plant, Town Administration Division Education Units, Railway and Movement etc. In the year 1973, the Petitioner -Company constitution a Committee comprising of its top -ranking Officers to manage to look after the affairs of the Cooperative Stores. On 19.06.1970, about 44 employees of the Cooperative Stores, were transferred by the H.E.C. Ltd. to the (Sic) departments in the H.E.C. Ltd. Likewise, on 04.09.1978 a second of about 44 employees were similarly transferred to the (Sic) units of the H.E.C. Ltd. The process of transfer of the employee Cooperative stores continued even till 1985 and one of employees, namely, Krishna Kumar who had joined the (Sic) Cooperative Stores on 24.12.1973 was transferred on 15.02.198 the Russian Hostel. Thus the workmen who were initially (Sic) under the H.E.C. Employees Consumer Cooperative Stores transferred to the various other departments under the H.E.C. continued to be employed by the petitioner -Company in (Sic) in departments and were even provided Medical facilities at (Sic) the employees of the permanent establishment of the (Sic) Deductions towards contributory Provident fund were also (Sic) from their salary and they were paid annual Bonus on the same and pattern as given to the employees of the (Sic) establishment. However, these workmen though working for more than 20 years, were not absorbed in the permanent establishment (Sic) Company nor were they paid, salary at par with the regular employees of the Company thereby creating a dispute with the Management of the Petitioner -Company. At the intervention of this recognized Union, namely, the Engineering Mazdoor Panchayat Union, an Industrial Dispute was raised and referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in terms of the reference stated above.
(3.) THE Management of the petitioner -Company contested the claim of the workmen before the Tribunal on the following grounds: (i) There is no existence of relationship of employer and employee between the Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and the workmen. (ii) The union namely, the Engineering Mazdoor Panchayat Union, has no locus standi to represent the workmen (Sic) to raise any industrial dispute on their behalf against the Management of the H.E.C. Ltd. (iii) That the dispute under reference cannot be termed as an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (iv) The Workmen are essentially the employees of the Cooperative Stores, which is an altogether separate establishment having its own identity and Board of Management regulated by its own bye -laws and has no concern whatsoever with the H.E.C. Ltd. and the Management of the H.E.C. Ltd. had never maintained any control of Management over the Cooperative stores. ;