# Bipin v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 16186 of 2021
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bipin-v-u-o-i-ors-46640
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 -
Sections 25FF, 25H, 25O, 25T & 25U -
Workmen employed for particular project -
Reinstatement with back wages, claimed -
Award - Legality challenged - Held, when a
workman is employed for a particular project,
the services of that employee came to an end
when the project was over and, therefore,
could not be given a permanent status - Lal
Mohammad's case followed. (Para 14)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrears be granted to the petitioner-institution
within a period of two months. A cost of
Rs.25,000/- is also imposed on the Joint
Secretary who has passed the order dated
8.2.2017 which is a verbatim reproduction of the
order dated 27.3.2015 and which had been setaside by this Court on 18.7.2016 in Writ-C
No.26241 of 2015.

7. In view of what has been stated above,
the writ petition stands allowed
----------
(2021)11ILR A592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 16186 of 2021

Bipin ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raghawendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.s.G.I., Sri Annapurna Singh, Sri Taniya Pandey

A. Labour Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 -
Sections 25FF, 25H, 25O, 25T & 25U -
Workmen employed for particular project -
Reinstatement with back wages, claimed -
Award - Legality challenged - Held, when a
workman is employed for a particular project,
the services of that employee came to an end
when the project was over and, therefore,
could not be given a permanent status - Lal
Mohammad's case followed. (Para 14)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Lal Mohammad Vs Indian Railway Construction
Co. Ltd. & ors.; 2004(5)AWC 3955All
2. Lal Mohammad & ors.. Vs Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors.; AIR 2007 SC 2230
3. Mineral Exploration Corp. Employees' Union Vs
Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. & anr.; 2000
AIR SCW 3865
4.Secretary, St. of Karn. Vs Uma Devi'2006 (4) SCC
1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the award dated 23.11.2020 which
has been passed by the Presiding Officer,
Central
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Court,
Kendiry Bhawan, 8th Floor Hall No. 1, Sector
- H, Aliganj, Lucknow. Further the writ
petition has also challenged the notice/order
dated 04.02.1998 which was issued by the
Joint General Manager, IRCON International
Ltd, Anpara, District - Sonbhadra. The writ
petition was finally heard after the parties
exchanged their affidavits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are
that the petitioner was employed by the Indian
Railway
Construction
International
Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Company')
initially as a peon on casual basis for a period of
six months by the order of the Project Manager
Vindhyay Nagar, District - Sithi (M.P.) on
19.4.1984. This was an employment under the
grade "D" category. After the completion of six
months of continuous service, the petitioner was
re-employed
on
monthly
basis
with
a
consolidated wage of Rs. 196/- plus dearness
allowance by an order dated 09.05.1985 and,
thereafter, he was attached with Anpara Project,
District - Mirzapur, U.P. His attachment there
necessitated a training and on the completion of
it, he was employed on the scale of pay which
was in the grade pay of Rs. 196-237/-. This was
done by an order dated 29.05.1998 issued by the
Regional Manager IRCON - Anpara. In this
arrangement, the petitioner continued for a
period of four years and was thereafter by an
order dated 28.4.1989 brought in the regular
11 All. Bipin Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
593
scale. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred
from Vindhya Nagar Project to Rihand Nagar
Project, District - Sonbhadra U.P. by an order
dated 23.12.1993. However, on 04.02.1998 a
notice was served upon the petitioner that with
effect from 06.02.1998 his services were
dispensed with it.

3. Aggrieved by the termination/notice
dated 04.02.1998, the petitioner alongwith 74
other workmen filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition No. 6522 of 1998. However, the writ
petition was disposed of on 23.01.2002 whereby
it was ordered that other than the petitioners no.
31 & 61 the other petitioners who were 73 in
number were to be given Rs. 3 lacs as
compensation. The petitioner alongwith the
petitioner no. 61 was given an option to file a
writ petition afresh. The petitioner instead of
filing a writ petition raised an industrial dispute
and prayed for his reinstatement with back
wages. The conciliation proceedings failed and
the matter was referred by the Government of
India to the Central Government Tribunal- cum -
Labour Court, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to
as the ''Labour Court') and this reference came to
be numbered as Reference No. 23 of 2009.
When the award was passed by the Labour
Court on 23.11.2020, the instant writ petition
was filed.

4. Before proceeding to enumerate
arguments advanced by the counsel for the
petitioner, certain other facts also require a brief
mention.

5. Certain workmen who were employed
with the company had filed writ petitions which
were numbered as 18561/1993, 32500/1993,
32651/1993,
34786/1993
and
44416/1993.
When the petitioners in these writ petitions had
been found to be surplus and their services were
dispensed with then the above mentioned writ
petitions were filed. These writ petitions were
connected to each other and were decided by a
common judgement on 7.12.1993 in which the
order impugned by which the petitioners therein
had been found to be surplus were set aside and
the petitioners were directed to be absorbed in
other projects. The order dated 7.12.1993 was
challenged in an Intra-court Special Appeal and
the Special Appellate Court had on 24.2.1998
allowed the special appeal and set aside the
order passed by the learned single judge dated
7.12.1993. Aggrieved thereof five civil appeals
were filed before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court wherein on certain grounds set
aside the order of the Division Bench dated
4.12.1998 and also set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1993. The
Supreme Court while remanding the matter
framed certain questions for consideration and
they were as follows:-

(i) Whether Anpara Rihand Nagar
Project is subjected to a factual closure as
mentioned in the impugned notices of March,
1998 or whether the project is not still
completed;

(ii) In the light of the answer to the
aforesaid question a further question would arise
whether impugned notices of March, 1998 were
in fact and in law closure notices as per Section
25O read with Section 25FFF of the Act or
whether they still remain retrenchment notices
and hence would be violative of Section 25N of
the Act;

(iii) Even if it is held that the Anpara
Rihand Nagar project is in fact closed down
whether the 25 appellants were employed in the
project or they were employees of the
respondent - company entitling them to the
absorbed in any other project of the company
and consequently whether the impugned notices
have not effected any snapping of employeremployee relationship between the appellants of
the one hand and the Respondent-company on
the other;
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) Even apart from the aforesaid
questions whether the impugned notices are
violative of the guarantee of Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India on the ground
that the termination of services of the 25
appellants was arbitrary and discriminatory,
respondent company being a ''State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.

6. Thereafter, upon remand, the five writ
petitions being Writ Petition Nos.18561/1993,
32500/1993,
32651/1993,
34786/1993
and
44416/1993 were heard by a Division Bench.
When on 17.5.2009 there was a conflict of
opinion between the two judges of the Division
Bench, again the matter went to the Supreme
Court and, thereafter, the Supreme Court
remanded the matter back and directed that the
matter be disposed of on merit by a Full Bench
of the High Court. Before the Full Bench, those
very four issues which had been asked by the
Supreme Court to be decided on 24.3.1998, were
placed for consideration. All the issues were
thereafter decided in favour of the respondentcompany and against the petitioners. The Full
Bench case was reported in 2004(5)AWC
3955All (Lal Mohammad vs. Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. And others.). The
petitioners in the Full Bench Case filed an
Appeal before the Supreme Court which was
numbered as Civil Appeal No. 6195-6198 of
2004 and Civil Appeal No. 5685 of 2006. The
decision of the Appeal before the Supreme Court
reported
in
AIR
2007
SC
2230
(Lal
Mohammad and Ors. vs. Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors.) specifically
decided that when a workman is employed for a
particular project then the services of that
employee came to an end as soon as the project
was over and he could not be given a permanent
status. It also held that shortfall of period of
notice or compensation, after completion of the
project ,would not render the termination bad on
that count.

7. The Supreme Court found that the
judgement of the Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court was correct. It also found that the
petitioners were not entitled to be regularized in
the services of the Company as they were not
employees of the company. It, however, held
that
the
petitioners
were
entitled
for
compensation and thereafter the appeals were
dismissed.

8. The petitioner in this writ petition has
claimed that his case was different from the case
of Lal Mohammod (supra).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner was given a status
of regular employee because he had been given
a scale of the regular employee with effect from
19.4.1984. He submits that on 19.5.1986 and
28.4.1989, the petitioner was further granted
certain status which were different from the
status which were granted to the petitioners in
the case of Lal Mohammad (supra). Learned
counsel further reiterated the provisions of 25H
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and stated
that the petitioner had a right to be reappointed if
the work was there. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submitted that IRCON Services
Rules provided for promotion, implementation,
regularization of casual employee.

10. Still further learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the manner in which
the respondents company had conducted itself
clearly showed that it was resorting to unfair
labour practices which was prohibited by
Section 25T and Section 25 U of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.

11. Learned counsel relied upon 2000 AIR
SCW 3865 (Mineral Exploration Corporation
Employees' Union vs. Mineral Exploration
Corporation Ltd. & another) and submitted
that employees who were engaged continuously
for a number of years cannot be treated as
11 All. Ram Sagar @ Sagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
temporary or casual employees. He, therefore,
submitted that the petitioners were entitled for
regularization.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that his case was absolutely different
from the case of Meghu Seikh. He submits that
comparison of the case of Meghu Seikh with the
case of the petitioner was not called for.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2, 3 and 4, however, relying upon the
judgements of Lal Mohammod(supra) which
was passed in the Full Bench decision of the
High Court and was confirmed by the Supreme
Court has made her submission and has
submitted that the case of the petitioner was at
similar footing with the case of Meghu Seikh.
She submitted that the very fact that the
petitioner had got regular scale did not mean that
the petitioner had been regularized. She still
further submitted that the petitioner was an
employee of the Project and not of the
Company. Still further learned counsel for the
respondents, Ms. Taniya Pandey submitted that
in pursuance of the law laid down in Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1 regularization could be done
only if there was a statutory rule framed in that
regard.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and after having perused the
written arguments which the parties have filed
(which are now made part of the record) and
also upon going through the award and the
various pleadings which have been exchanged
by the parties, this Court finds that no
interference is warranted in the award. The
Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR
2007 SC 2230 (Lal Mohammad and Ors. vs.
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and
Ors.) has categorically laid down that when a
workman is employed for a particular project,
the services of that employee came to an end
when the project was over and, therefore,
could not be given a permanent status. It has
also held that the workman could not be
considered as employee of the company under
which various other projects ran. This Court
also finds that there was similarity in the case
of the petitioner and the case of Meghu Seikh.

15. Under such circumstances, no
interference is warranted in the writ petition
and
the
writ
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A595
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 20880 of 2020

Ram Sagar @ Sagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Babu Lal Ram, Sri Jyoti Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 189 & 190 - UP Revenue Rules, 2016
- R. 57 - Fishery lease - Auction - Highest
bidder defaulted in depositing the bid amount -
Next bidder (petitioner) permitted to deposit
25% bid amount - Allotment claimed by the
next bidder - Entitlement - Held, when as per
the auction, the highest bidder could not
deposit the 25 per cent of the bid amount
which was required to be deposited by him
then there was no other option left with the
authorities but to re-auction the pond - The
next bidder definitely had no right to claim for
getting allotment - High Court directed to
return back the amount deposited by the next