UNION OF INDIA Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein, who was the writ petitioner, was employed as a Works Mistry at Bhakra Dam and was thereafter promoted as Supervisor (Office and Material) in the same organisation. On the completion of the work of the Bhakra Dam, the employees who were likely to be discharged, were offered fresh appointment by way of absorption in the Beas Project Administration at Talwara. In pursuance of this decision of the authorities, an offer of employment as Supervisor (Office and Material) was made to the writ petitioner vide Annexure P-l6 dated 9th Aug., 1965. Pursuant to this offer, the Bhakra Dam Administration also gave an option to the respondent to leave the employment of the Bhakra Administration and to seek absorption in the Beas Project as Supervisor (Office and Material) thus vide Annexure P-2. It is the case of the respondent that in pursuance of this offers he resigned his job with the Bhakra Dam Administration and took employment with the Beas Project. The case of the respondent further is that the appointment as Supervisor was in the office and material section, whereas the case of the appellant is that the respondent was taken as a Supervisor in the office and material section and thereafter transferred to the Lubrication and Servicing Section. It appears that on some reduction in strength in the lubrication and servicing Section, the respondent, who was the junior most Supervisor m that section, was retrenched vide Annexure P-12 dated 8th July, 1977. This annexure was impugned by the respondent by filing a writ petition and on the same having been quashed by the learned single Judge, the Union of India has preferred the prese:.r Letters Patent Appeal. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge, the the formed one category whether they were working in the lubrication and Servicing Sec. or in the office and Material Sec. and, as respondent, No. 5, Des Raj, in the writ petition, who was admittedly working in the Office and Material Sec. and was junior to the respondent as a Supervisor was retained in service, the retrenchment of the writ petitioner was contrary to the provisions of section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the ACT').

(2.) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding of fact recorded by the learned single judge that all supervisors lay in one category irrespective of the trade to which they belonged was erroneous in as much as that it was clear from the record that the respondent herein had initially been appointed in the Office and Material Sec. and thereafter seconded to the Lubrication and Servicing Sec. after the service of the requisite notice under section 9-A oi the Act (Annexure A-2 to the writ petition). The inference that the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to draw is that in pursuance of the notice aforementioned the trade of the respondent was,, in fact, changed to Lubrication and Servicing Sec. though under the category of Supervisor with effect from 1.12.1973.

(3.) The stand of the respondent's counsel, however, is that the office and Material or Lubrication and Servicing Sections were but two different trades in which the category of Supervisor existed. In elaboration, it has been urged that as per the showing of the appellant itself in the written statement filed by them in reply to the writ petition, the reference has been made to Office and Material or Lubricate and Servicing trades. It has been stated that even the documents on which primary reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Annexure R-2, it has been stated as follows; " I hereby give notice to classify you in trade Lubrication and Servicing under the category of Supervisor ", A pointed reference has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to Annexure P-16 and P-2 in order to show that the initial appointment of the respondent was in the category of Supervisor Office and Material and that appointment continued till the date of retrenchment of the said petitioner when Des Raj, respondent No. 5, though junior was retained.