CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS (AN AUTONOMOUS BODY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS) Vs. D. SURESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17 -7 -2002 passed in W.P. No. 24992 of 2002 and W.P. Nos. 26235 to 26238 of 1995. In all these 5 appeals, the appellant is common. As the facts and points in these appeals are same, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts as stated in the appeal are: The appellant -Center for Development of Telematics is an autonomous body set up by the Government of India engaged in developing a wide range of Switching and Transmission technologies in the area of Telecommunications. For the specific purpose of conducting field trials in respect of one of the digital exchanges developed by it at the premises of Telephone Exchange at Ulsoor, the five respondents were engaged on daily wage basis. It was also made clear to the respondents that they were engaged for a time bound activity which will cease on completion of the field work. The project work was completed in 1991 and the exchange was handed over. Now it is named as BSNL. As such the services of the respondents were dispensed with. The respondents raised a dispute before the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No. 18 of 1994 and the Labour Court by its order dated 16 -2 -2002 passed an award reinstating the respondents in their posts. Aggrieved by that order the appellant filed the above writ petitions which were dismissed on 17 -7 -2002. Hence, the present writ appeals.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate properly the facts and the material on record. It is submitted that the respondents were engaged through a contractor for a specific purpose and as such, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondents. He also submits that even assuming but not admitting that the respondents were engaged by the appellant, it was only for a specific purpose, on completion of which, the services of the respondents have been dispensed with. Therefore, the Courts below have erred in ordering reinstatement when the respondents have no right to claim reinstatement. It is also submitted that the appellant has only two Research Centres, one at Delhi and the other at Bangalore but the Labour Court has wrongly appreciated the fact by holding that the appellant -Organization has other branches. She further submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in not properly considering the evidence of M.W. 1, who was a consultant and that itself makes it clear that the respondents were engaged for the project work, but on the basis of other materials which are not relevant the Labour Court has discarded the evidence. She relied on the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Division, Hubli (Now North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation) Vs. B.B. Tabusi, ILR (2000) KAR 2156 , and the decision in M.D., U.P. Land Dev. Corpn. and Another Vs. Amar Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2357

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued in rejoinder that by efflux of time the project is over and the services of the workmen have been terminated after completion of project work. It is submitted that on completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year, compensation has been paid which has been noted in the award. It is also submitted that approaching a wrong forum and getting interim order will not give them any right when there is no work and the learned Single Judge should have interfered with the order of reinstatement. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.