RAM GARIB Vs. P O LABOUR COURT VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-workmen challenged the award of the , Labour Court, Varanasi passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 320, 321, 322; 323, 325 and 329 of 1988 dated 12/04/1996, Annexure V to the writ petition. The following dispute has been referred to by the State Government before the Labour Court for adjudication. "Vernacular matter omitted"

(2.) The Labour Court has consolidated all the cases, out of which the present petitioners filed the present writ petition, on the ground that the facts and pleadings of the parties are common and therefore they are being disposed of by the common order. The facts and pleadings of the Adjudication Case No. 322 of 1988 have been taken to be as leading case with the consent of the parties.

(3.) According to the case set up by the petitioners-workmen, they were employees of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and U.P. State Bridge Corporation undertakes different projects for construction of the bridge in the State, country and also in the foreign country. It is also stated by the workmen concerned in their pleadings that in different units, the employer have engaged about twenty five thousand workmen and the conditions of all the workmen have been regulated by the Standing Orders, which provide the transfer of employee from one unit to another unit according to the contingency of the employment. The workman, in the leading case, has stated that he was appointed on 1/10/1979 with the respondent-employer in its Bijnor unit and from there he was transferred to Allahabad unit in the month of June, 1983 and from Allahabad unit, he has been transferred to Faizabad unit in July, 1985. It is further stated that similarly all the petitioners were appointed and transferred from one unit to another unit. The workman further stated that the aforesaid workmen were appointed on the post of Khalasi and that the nature of the work of the workmen was of permanent nature, but they were not declared permanent. It is further stated by the workmen that on April 21, 1986, they are forcibly stopped from working and when they have agitated to this action of the employer, the police force was used to deter them from joining from duties. The Assistant Engineer concerned on 22/04/1986 got a notice published that the services of all these employees would stand terminated with effect from 22/05/1986. At that time all these workmen were working at Barabanki unit of the employer, but their services were terminated, even though the work was going on at Barabanki unit. It is further stated that while terminating the services of the workmen concerned, the employer have not followed the 5 principles of last come first go and have also not complied with the statutory provision. The Assistant Engineer, who had issued the notice, was not a competent authority and since the establishment of the employer is covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the employer have not complied with the provision of Section 25-F of the Act, as they have not obtained prior permission of the State Government before resorting to the retrenchment and the notice period as provided is 90 days, whereas they have given notice of only 30 days. Thus, the action of the respondent-employer was contrary to law; the workmen therefore are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages.