B R SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of petitions brought under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India challenges certain actions taken by the officers of the Trade Fair Authority of India (TEAI) in exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction whereby the services of certain regular workmen have been terminated and several casual or daily rated workers are rendered jobless. Put briefly, the facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:

(2.) The Trade Fair Authority Employees' Union (Union hereafter) was demanding housing facilities, regularisation of at least 50% of. casual or daily rated employees and upward revision of the salaries and allowances of the workers of (TEAI) These demands were discussed with the Chief General Manager of (TEAI) on August 29,1986 and thereafter from time to time but nothing concrete emerged. The case of the Union is that the Chief General Manager had assured the Union representatives that although it may not be possible to regularise the service of casual labour to the extent of 50% some posts had already been identified and the Standing Committee of (TEAI) which was seized of the matter would take a decision at an early date. On the question of upward revision of wages and allowances the Union's case (supra) is that the Chief General Manager had given an assurance that pending final decision by the High Powered Committee of TFAI, the scales prevailing in, MMTC and STC could be adopted. The grievance of the Union is that dispite these assurances no action to implement the same was taken whereupon the Union wrote to the Chief General Manager on October 29, 1986 seeking implementation of the assurances at an early date and not later than November 15, 1986. It was also communicated that the workers belonging to the Union had decided to proceed on a token strike of one day on November 13, 1986. At a subsequent meeting held on November 3, 1986 the General Manager of TFAI is stated to have assured the Union representatives that the Standing Committee will be requested to take up the issue on priority basis so that the outcome becomes known by the end of November, 1986. No such decision was taken by the end of November, 1986; not even after the Union's reminders of December 18, 1986 and January 9, 1987 whereupon the Union wrote a letter dated January 15, 1987 to the Chief General Manager to permit the Union to hold a General Body Meeting of the Union on January 19, 1987 during lunch hours. In anticipation of such permission being granted, which had always been granted in the past, the Union despatched notices to its members to attend the meeting. However, the Chief General Manager informed the Union representatives that the permission was refused. Within minutes of the receipt of this communication, the President of the Union sent a reply stating that it was not possible to cancel the meeting at such short notice. The General Body meeting was held as scheduled and a decision was taken to strike work on January 21, 1987 to protest against the management's failure to implement the assurances already given. On the same day, January 19, 1987, the Union served the management with a notice informing it about the decision to strike work on January 21, 1987. The management reacted by placing the President, Vice President, and Executive Members of the Union under suspension with immediate effect, i.e. with effect from January 20, 1987. This angered the striking workmen who had gathered outside the precincts of TFAI on January 21, 1987. They demanded the immediate withdrawal of the suspension orders failing which they threatened that the strike would continue indefinitely. Intimation to this effect was served on the Chief General Manager. The management however suspended all the remaining office bearers, the executive members and leading activists of the Union w.e.f. January 23, 1987. The strike was, however, called off w.e.f. January 24, 1987, according to the Union in the larger interest of TFAI and in national interest as the President of India was to inaugurate the AHARA '87 on January 25, 1987, while according to the management it continued for almost two weeks. Writ Petition No. 296/ 1987 is by those 42 suspended workers.

(3.) Now, during the strike some of the casual workers attended duty and their services remained unaffected, some others who reported for duty after the strike and were prepared to sign an undertaking in the prescribed form were given work while the remaining casual workers who did not sign such an undertaking or were late in reporting for work were denied employment. The Union's case (supra) is that out of a total work-force of about 500 casual workers, 160 did not participate in the strike and about 90 signed the undertaking and they have since been employed while the remaining casual workers are denied work. The Union sought the intervention of the Union Commerce Minister and also invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration, with a view to finding an amicable settlement as the discharged workers were facing untold miseries. However, contends the Union, the response of the management was not positive and hence the Union was left with no alternative but to invoke this court's Jurisdiction for an early solution of the unemployment problem faced by the workers. Writ Petition No. 271/87 is by 243 casual labourers who have-thus been rendered jobless.