NARESH CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals raise simitar and identical issues. The appeals were heard together and they are also being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE appellants herein challenged the legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 21st July, 2006 and also against the award dated 21st November, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi holding the reference against the workmen in respect of their termination of service. The appellants herein were engaged for different posts by the respondent on 23. 04. 1990/23. 07. 1990. In the offer of appointment the engagement of the appellants was for a fixed period, i. e. , upto 29th January, 1991 and the terms and conditions for the post for which they were engaged were also given in the offer of appointment. The appellants accepted the aforesaid offer, pursuant to which the appointment letters were also issued to them on specific terms and conditions to which reference shall be made during the course of discussion. Services of the appellants were also not dispensed with within the date fixed in their order of engagement and they continued to work. However, their services were subsequently dispensed with w. e. f. 21. 3. 1992.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid dispensation of service, the appellants raised industrial dispute. The appropriate government made a reference pursuant thereto to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon and decide as to whether or not the termination of the services of the appellants was legal and justified, and if not, to what relief the workmen would be entitled? The Tribunal allowed the parties to adduce their evidence and on appreciation thereof and other records held that the appellants were employed specifically for the purpose of ussr specialists who had come for performance of the task entrusted to them and with the completion of the said task the services of those employees were no longer required and, therefore, it was a clear cut case of "closure" as the workmen were engaged only for a fixed period for the specific purpose for attending those specialists, and consequently the action of the management in disengaging the appellants was fully justified. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, filed writ petitions in this Court which were registered as wp (C) Nos. 1785/1997 and 1787/1997. The aforesaid petitions were heard by the learned Single judge and by orders dated 21st July, 2006 they were dismissed.