NANAK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -Triveni Structurals Ltd, Allahabad is Government owned company. Petitioners were engaged by the respondent -company as Mechanic and Clerk respectively on 23.6.1989 and 1.6.1989 at Narloo Bridge site, Arnas, Tehsil Reasi District Udhampur. Services of the petitioners have been terminated in the month of September 1998 on completion of Narloo Bridge project. While terminating the services, they were allowed retrenchment benefit. This is evident from order dated 27.9.1998 annexure -A with the writ petition and an amount of Rs 7029/ - was paid to the petitioner No: 1 and Rs 7227/ - was paid to petitioner No: 2. Retrenchment compensation has been assessed in respect to employment of the petitioner No:1 for the period 23.6.1989 to 27.9.1998 and in respect to petitioner No: 2 for the period 1.6.1989 to 29.9.1998. Claim of the petitioners in the present petition is for quashment of order of their termination and for their re -employment as well as consequential regularization of their services in the respondent -company. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to regularization in terms of policies and circulars issued by the Govt. of India from time to time. Respondent -company has under taken work of different bridges throughout the country and even after completion of Narloo bridge, respondent -company is liable to adjust the petitioners in some other bridge as they are willing to work at any bridge.

(2.) RESPONDENT -company filed its reply. It is stated that petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis. No appointment order was ever issued in favour of the petitioners and their employment was not in permanent capacity. Respondent -company engages certain workers on daily rated basis to execute the work. Petitioners were also engaged in the same manner. Bridge for which petitioners were engaged has been completed. Services of the petitioners engaged on daily wage basis are not required. After completion of bridge, retrenchment compensation in accordance with Industrial Disputes Act has been worked out, however, they have refused to receive the same. It is further stated that petitioners were engaged for specific period and for specific work and there services are no more required. In addition to this, it is stated that respondent -company has been declared sick company under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 and referred to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). Respondent -company is passing through severe financial crisis. BIFR in its meeting dated 28.8.1995 through rehabilitation scheme has taken certain measures. This included freezing of man power and to reduce the man power strength through voluntary Retirement Scheme and more than 700 employees have opted for voluntary retirement. Engagement of the petitioners on daily wage basis has not been disputed by either of the parties. It is also admitted case of the parties that no appointment order was ever issued. Engagement of the petitioners was for bridge which has since been completed. Petitioners stand disengaged with effect from September 1998. Though retrenchment compensation has been assessed, however, petitioners have not received the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred to various judgments. In Division Bench judgment dated 25.11.1998 passed in LPA(SW) No: 266/1997, a direction was issued for regularization of the services of the petitioners who were workers of Doordarshan in view of the scheme of Govt. of India formulated in the year 1993. In another judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 1994(2) SCT 14, it was held that if there is no written order issued to the workman employing for specific period and for specific work it may be presumed that there was no contract of employment for a specific period. In another case reported as 1995(4)SCT 400, it was held that service of daily wage workers cannot be terminated so far as work to engage them is available. Yet another judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported as 1995(4)SCT 350. Honble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that State Government cannot abandon the project arbitrarily without any sufficient reasons so as to render thousands unemployed and snatch the livelihood of poor workers abruptly and State must strive to afford livelihood and not to snatch the same. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported as 2000LLR 577. Honble Supreme Court has held that termination of casual employee who has secured status of temporary employee on the allegation of assaulting watchman without any enquiry is unsustainable. All the above judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner are totally irrelevant. Petitioners have not been disengaged on account of criminal charges nor their engagement was punitive in nature. Petitioners have themselves placed on record representations made by them to the concerned authority on 5.1.1998, 26.9.1998 and 6.10.1998 whereby they are claiming their regularization admitting therein that their services have not been regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any rule or regulation framed by the respondent -company where under services of the petitioners are required to be regularized nor any other law or rules has been brought to notice where under company is bound to regularize their services. Engagement of the petitioners was for a bridge which has been since completed. Apex Court considered similar issued in number of cases. In case of Sandeep Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR, 1992 SC 713, Apex Court held as under: