UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award directing reinstatement of the female workers with retrospective effect and with full back wages.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner, North Eastern Railway, affairs and administration is regulated under the Indian Railways Act as well as under the provisions contained in the Indian Railways Establishment Manual and other statutory Rules and Regulations. As per Para 2839 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, the petitioner provide benefits to the families of railway employees by way of setting up welfare schemes. Para 2839 of the Manual reads as under : 2839 HANDICRAFT CENTRES : (1) Handicraft centres should be set up for the benefit of the families of the Railwaymen for imparting training to women members of Railwaymen families in handicrafts such as weaving, knitting, spinning tailoring of garments etc. during their spare time with the object of helping them in learning trade to augment the family income. (2) Expenditure of this scheme should be met from the Staff Benefit fund. (3) Accommodation for Handicraft centres should be provided in spare railway buildings free of rent. No new building for this purpose should be constructed without prior approval of the Railway Board. (4) Charges for electricity and water consumed by the Handicrafts centres located in railway building should be borne from the Railway Revenues. Where the Handicraft Centre are housed in Railway Institutes those charges should be borne by the institute. (5) Railway Administrations should patronise and encourage the Handicraft centres by placing orders for the supply and fabrication of articles required by railway.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the respondents contended that under the garb of a training centre and under the garb of imparting training, the petitioners were in fact taking regular work from them and that there was a master and servant relationship and instead of paying regular wages, the employers had adopted an unfair labour practice by giving them a paltry amount on piece rated basis. The respondents contended that the handicraft centre was nothing else but an industry where an industrial activity was being carried out and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act was clearly applicable. The respondents were working from two years to twenty seven years without any break in service, and were being paid on piece rated basis. The action of the respondents in closing the establishment without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was patently erroneous and violative of the provisions of the Act. The respondents alleged that since, they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and since retrenchment compensation was not paid, the removal of their services was wholly illegal and therefore, they were liable to be reinstated in service with full back wages.