SUBHASH Vs. GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are 24 in number and are represented by a trade union. The appellants have assailed the order dated 2 nd June, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8594/2004 and 8616/2004, which were filed by the respondent herein-Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. By the impugned decision two awards both dated 4 nd February, 2004 in ID No. 93/1996 and ID No. 143/1996 have been set aside. By award dated 4 th February, 2004 in ID No. 93/1996, the Industrial Adjudicator had held that the applicants, who were 26 in number, were direct employees of the respondent and the contract between the respondent and M/s Lakshmi Chand and Sons was sham and a camouflage. It was further directed that these employees should be regularised against the vacancies, which had arisen after termination of services of the appellants and the balance/rest of the employees should be regularised as and when vacancy arise. ID No. 143/1996 was filed on behalf of 35 workmen and in the award dated 4 th February, 2004, it was directed that Sushil Kumar, Subash I, Manoj, Bijender, Subash II, Raju, Ramesh Kumar, Rajesh, Pappu, Surender, Deep Chand, Lalit, Bhim Sen, Sanjay, Rajeev, Sri Pal, Sanju, Ramesh, Subash III, Pradeep, Shammi and Pintoo were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the decision of the learned single judge is contrary to law as there was no ground and reason to upset the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator that the contract between the respondent management and Lakshmi Chand and Sons was sham and a camouflage. The writ Court was not sitting as an appellate forum and the written contract was never brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that they had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Central Information Commission has recorded that the agreements/contracts between the respondent management and Lakshmi Chand and Sons have not been located and the Public Information Officer has been directed to file a police complaint stating that the records have been stolen/lost and when this fact was discovered. He has drawn our attention to the order dated 25 th April, 2011 passed by the Central Information Commission that there was a possibility that the file between the respondent management and the Lakshmi Chand and Sons was never opened. He further submits that the recruitments in Class IV were made in 1999 and 2000 as has been admitted in the information provided under the Right to Information Act. Reliance is placed on International Airport Authority of India versus International Air Cargo Workers Union, 2009 13 SCC 374 and observations in Steel Authority of India Limited versus National Union Waterfront Workers, 2001 7 SCC 1.

(3.) To begin with, reference may be made to the two decisions relied upon by the appellants. Paragraph 107 at page 56 of the above citation in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) reads as under: