HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been directed against the Award dated 18.5.1996 of Industrial Tribunal whereby the Tribunal directed the reinstatement of respondent No.1, Roshan Lal with full back wages.

(2.) The factual matrix is that India Paper Pulp Company Ltd. (for short "IPPCL") was incurring heavy losses and the amount of creditors was in jeopardize. In order to help the revival of this Company, the petitioner company was asked by Government to provide technical and financial help. The petitioner company started overseeing the operation of IPPCL as directed by Government of India. Several winding up petitions filed by the creditors of IPPCL, were pending before Calcutta High Court. Petitioner Company after studying all aspects of the operations and Mill of IPPCL, submitted a report to the Government. From October 1976 petitioner company also started looking after marketing of the paper products of IPPCL and deputed its officers to help in marketing of paper stock. Respondent No.1 was working as a Peon in the IPPCL. He was promoted from Peon to a Clerk and posted in the Sales Office, Nai Sarak by IPPCL with effect from 1.4.1978. IPPCL could not revive and went into liquidation. Winding up order of the IPPCL was passed by Calcutta High Court on 4.5.1979. This order was stayed till 31.10.1979 and the stay was later vacated and final winding up order was passed by Calcutta High Court. The company went into liquidation finally on 27.1.1981. On 2.3.1981, the Area Manager of the petitioner Company who was looking after Marketing Operations of IPPCL also, intimated to respondent No.1 that IPPCL has gone into liquidation and he ceases to be on the roll of the company. In the meantime, the Calcutta High Court on 29.4.1981 directed West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited to run the business of IPPCL on licence basis. On 12.7.1981 respondent No.1 sent a representation to Chief Executive of IPPCL that since the company was being revived, he should also be reinstated in the service.

(3.) The respondent No.1 on 26.6.1982 sent a notice to the petitioner company alleging that while he was earlier working with IPPCL, in 1979 he was directly taken on the rolls of petitioner company and he was posted as a Godown Clerk at the godown of petitioner company at Delhi and he was paid wages directly by petitioner. His services were wrongfully terminated by the Area Manager of petitioner on 2.3.1981. He claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The petitioner took the stand that respondent No.1 was not its employee, so it did not reinstate him. He raised an industrial dispute and a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal and the impugned award was passed.