GAMMON INDIA LIMITED Vs. R K BAWEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Gammon India Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, has prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 2 from enforcing the award dated 25th February, 1969 given in his favour by the presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 to the petition is the presiding officer of the Tribunal and respondent No. 2 is the workman in whose favour the award has been made.

(2.) Brief facts according to the petition are that the petitioner- company carried on business as Civil Engineers & Contractors in India and obtained contracts for construction from various Governmental and semi-Governmental authorities. Corporations, etc. For the purpose of executing these contracts, the Company set up offices at the sites of the constructions. Every such office at the site worked under the control of site Engineer, who engaged staff for purposes of execution of the contract. Respondent No. 2 Niranjan Dass, for the first time joined the site office of the company in July, 1956 at Dehra Bridge at Kashipur, (U. P.), but his services were terminated in May, 1957. In October/November 1957 he was re-employed at the site of another work of the com- pany at Ram Ganga Project Bridge, Dhampur, (U. P.), but in July, 1958 his services from this assignment also were terminated. In September, 1958 he was then employed again for the work of the company at Ram Ganga Project where he worked till Septem- ber, 1959. In October, 1959 he was again taken in employment at Ram Ganga Project and his services continued till June, 1960. In September, 1960 a fresh appointment was made and he was employed at the works of the company at Kopili Bridge in Assam where he worked till 22nd February, 1962. After a lapse of about 1-1/2 months thereafter, he again applied in April, 1962, for a job with the Central Zonal Office of the company and was employed as a Senior Clerk with effect from 5th April, 1962. The letter of appointment issued in his favour on this occasion has been filed by respondent No. 2 as annexure 'A' annexed to his counter-affidavit. On 14th September, 1967 he was served with one month's notice terminating his services, as it was contended that the Central Zonal Office of the company where the petitioner had been employed was closed. This let to a dispute between him and the management,which was considered to be an industrial dispute by the appropriate Government within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. By order No. 224 (224)/68-Lab. dated 30th May, 1968, therefore, the Lt. Governor referred this dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. On 25th February, 1969 the Tribunal gave its award which was published in Delhi Gazette dated April 10, 1969. The Tribunal held that the order of retrenchment made against respondent No. 2 was illegal and void as retrenchment compensation that had to be paid to him as a condition precedent to his retrenchment had not been paid with the result that this respondent continued to be in service of the management and was entitled to wages till he was lawfully retrenched. This petition is directed against this finding of the award.

(3.) In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 to oppose the petition the nature of business activity of the petitioner company was not denied and it was also not disputed that for purposes of execuing the construction works the petitioner-company had been setting up offices at the sites of constructions, but it was contended that invariably the old staff was retained for subsequent contracts also. The factum of the Central Zonal Office having been closed was emphatically denied and the award of the Tribunal was maintained to be perfectly legal and valid.