BALDEV Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the Beas Construction Board. They were employed on work-charge basis by the Beas Construction Board, continuously for a long period of time. However, their services were not regularized. Two references were made to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh, being references No. 3/c of 1973 and 9/c of 1973. These references were disposed of by an award by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh on 27th July, 1974. The following directions were issued:

(2.) IN spite of the aforesaid directions having been given, the petitioners were not given any relief. Thereafter, the workmen again raised an industrial dispute, which was numbered I. D. 111 of 1983 (Delhi ). This reference was disposed of by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh on 28th January, 1986. The Tribunal has held that since BBMB was neither a party to the preceding reference No. 8/c of 1973 nor was the Board summoned to join the references at any stage, the finding recorded in the earlier award was not binding on the BBMB. A perusal of the earlier award shows that references No. 3/c of 1973 and 9/c of 1973 had been disposed of on the basis of decision rendered in reference No. 8/c of 1973. In the award, which is being challenged in the present writ petition, it has been held that Bhakra Construction Board is concerned only with the constructional aspect of the Project. After the completion of the Project, the work-charge staff like the petitioners were retrenched on payment of terminal benefits as envisaged in the Industrial Law. It was only thereafter that the BBMB took over the Project for maintenance and operation.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, it was held that BBMB is an entirely different venture managed by a different organization. The award, given in the earlier references, has been termed by the Presiding Officer, as suggestions made by a compassionate father. It has been held to be not of a binding nature. The petitioners were recruited and discharged by the BBMB in work-charge category and had been retrenched in accordance with law. Thereafter, on taking over the management of BBMB, the required staff was appointed on regular basis. The best available employees had been taken on roll. Thereafter in paragraph 11, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal noticed the offer made by the representative of the BBMB, whereby an undertaking was given that when any future vacancy arises at the Project, the petitioners would be reconsidered for employment.