AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
CMP No. 923 of 2010
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the proforma respondents, whose interest is similar to that of the appellants, are permitted to be transposed as appellants No. 8 to 23. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 144 of 2008
This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2007, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the workmen and upheld the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Chandigarh, dated 25.02.2002, answering the reference in favour of the employer and against the workmen.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the following question was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:
Whether the action of the Executive Engineer BCB Bhiwani and Chief Engineer BCB (Electrical) Beas Project (Power Wing) BCB, SCO No. 62-63 Sector17-A, Chandigarh in terminating the services of 29workers (whose names and address is given below)is legally just and valid? If not, then to which relief these workmen are entitled to and from which date?
The factual matrix is that the workmen were admittedly employees of the erstwhile Beas Construction Board. This Board had been set up for execution of hydro-electric power projects on the river Beas and Sutlej. On the completion of these projects, these workmen became surplus and their services were no longer required in the project. The employer taking a humanitarian view of the matter offered re-employment to the workmen on the Ranjit Sagar Dam, which was being constructed on river Raavi. The case set up by the employer is that even vehicles were provided to transport the workmen to the site of Ranjit Sagar Dam, but these workmen did not want to join there and slipped away.
This assertion is contested by the learned counsel for the workmen. Assuming that vehicles were not made available, once a job offer was given, the employees could themselves have reported at Ranjit Sagar Dam to join duty in case they were willing to accept the alternative employment. It stands proved on record that all those employees of the erstwhile Beas Construction Board, who were declared surplus and reported for duty on Ranjit Sagar Dam, were actually offered employment there. The petitioners chose not to report for duty at Ranjit Sagar Dam. This is a finding of facts given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which cannot be set aside in the writ proceedings. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly rejected. No costs.