UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award dated November 15, 1999 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in Reference No. 6 of 1998, was assailed in the writ petition being W.P. No. 1786 (W) of 2000, since been dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated June 17, 2001 declining to interfere with the award on the grounds recorded therein, has since been challenged in this appeal. The Appellants' Submission:

(2.) A reference was made with regard to the action of the management in not regularizing the 540 Muster Roll Workers and denying them equal pay for equal work and other facilities, which the regular workmen were enjoying. This was sought to be defended by Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Farakka Barrage Project on two-fold grounds. First that no industrial dispute could be maintained against the management of Farakka Barrage Project since the management discharged sovereign function in the distribution or sharing of water of the Ganges pursuant to a treaty between the Government of India and that with the Republic of Bangladesh. The second ground is on merit having several limbs. (1) According to Mr. Bandopadhyay, there is no scope for regularisation of a Muster Roll Employee in a Government establishment except through the Recruitment Rules or the Regularisation Scheme applicable to the establishment. (2) In case it is held, alternatively he contended, that it is an industry and not an establishment discharging sovereign function, in that event, the employees would be workmen and cannot claim more than what is permissible under the Industrial Law as provided in Chapter-V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 onwards. (3) He next contended that in a recent decision in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others 2004 (7) SCC 112 : 2004-III-LLJ-780 the Apex Court has deprecated all kinds of recruitment or regularisation de hors the Recruitment or Regularisation Rules even if any employee continues for a long period of time having entered through backdoor. (4) Next he contended that the Farakka Barrage Project, being a Project which is supposed to come to an end any day cannot be an establishment in which the concept of regularisation could be pushed through as was held in Managing Director, U.P.Land Development Corporation and another v. Amar Singh and others 2003-III-LLJ-220 (SC). (5) Assailing the decision of the learned single Judge, he contended that even the ratio decided in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and " others AIR 1992 SC 2130 : 1992 (4) SCC 118 : 1993-II-LLJ-937 does not support the view taken by the learned single Judge based thereon. Relying on the Scheme, being the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India of 1993, Mr. Bandopadhyay contended that the employees having accepted their status in accordance with the Scheme framed in 1993, they cannot pray for better benefits than those conferred under the Scheme, particularly, in view of the limitation of the Court in the absence of its jurisdiction to direct creation of post or sanction or accord approval for regular post and thus the award is without jurisdiction since it is not in conformity with the Scheme. The Respondents' Submission:

(3.) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent/workmen, on the other hand, supported the decision on the ground that (1) there was no sovereign function discharged by the management of the Farakka Barrage Project in implementing or executing the treaty between the Government of India and that of the Republic of Bangladesh which was entered into between the two States long after the establishment of the Barrage Project and the employment of the workmen, inasmuch as when the treaty would not change the character of the Project. (2) According to him, the Project being an industry in view of Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act defining workmen, there cannot be any distinction in order to entitle a workman to get the benefits of equal pay for equal work and other facilities available to another workman on the ground that he is a casual worker or a Muster Roll Worker. There is no scope of regularisation within the Scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is only the characteristics of the workman if satisfies and a person comes within the definition of workman defined in Section 2(s) read with the V Schedule, clause (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he is entitled to all the benefits available under the 1947 Act. (3) The decision relied upon by Mr. Bandopadhyay are all related to the employment in the Government Undertaking or the statutory organizations, it has nothing to do with industries and industrial workmen. The right of a workman is not dependent on any Scheme or Rules or otherwise except as recognized by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (4) Relying on the award and the order of the learned single Judge, he points out that the facts are more or less admitted and the finding of facts has not been challenged as perverse. On the admitted facts unless there is glaring illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal or that of the learned single Judge, the Appeal Court is not supposed to interfere with. According to him, there is nothing, which could persuade this Court to deviate from the finding of the learned single Judge and the learned Tribunal on the basis of the established facts as has been found by the learned single Judge and the learned Tribunal concurrently. Farakka Barrage/Appellant, if discharges sovereign Junction: