LAL MOHAMMAD Vs. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by -

(2.) LEAVE granted in these special leave petitions.

(3.) THE respondent-Company resisted the writ petitions and submitted that the writ petitioners were only ad hoc employees. THEy were not regularly appointed after following due procedure of recruitment rules and were employed only at the Rihand Nagar Project and as the Project came to an end, the writ petitioners were liable to be retrenched and were accordingly retrenched on closure of the Project after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It was also contended that Section 25-N of the Act did not apply to the facts of the present cases as the Riband Nagar Project of the Company where the writ petitioners were employed, was not an "industrial establishment" as defined by Section 25-L of the Act read with Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short "the Factories Act") as it was not a "factory" at all. It was also vehemently contended that the writ petitioners were not employees of the Company from the inception of their entry in service but they were recruited solely for the purpose of the Riband Nagar Project and their services were terminated after the said Project got closed and they could not urge for being absorbed in any other project of the Company. It was also submitted that the retrenchment orders were not arbitrary or illegal as submitted by the writ petitioners.