AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Chauhan, J.—C.M. Application No. 5681 (W) of 2000 moved by the opposite parties for recalling the ex-parte judgment dated 14.12.1999 passed by Hon''ble Bhanwar Singh, J. (as his Lordship then was) interalia on the ground that the opposite parties were not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the judgment was passed ex-parte and the correct facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court.
The present writ petition has been filed arraying the main opposite party, which was the appointing authority of the petitioners. The Union of India is only a profarma party. The opposite parties were informed suddenly about the judgment of this Court dated 14.12.1999 and when the enquiry was made from the counsel engaged, it was informed that the case was decided ex-parte and the then counsel could not appear before this Court as his name was not shown in the cause list. Against the said judgment Special Appeal No. 22 of 2000 was filed, which was decided on 2 1.02.2000 and was disposed of with the direction that the petitioners may move a recall application for recalling the ex-parte judgment. Thus, the opposite parties moved the present application for recalling the ex-parte judgment.
International Airport Authority of India indulged into upgradation work at Indira Gandhi Udyan Academy, Fursatganj, Raibareli through the Fursatganj Project. The said project was one time project which lasted for few months only. The petitioners were engaged on daily wages for few months only and were disengaged after completion of the project. The petitioners were never engaged after completion of the project. The first Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1988 was filed by the petitioners challenging their disengagement. The said writ petition was got not pressed on 6.9.1988 with the prayer to avail the alternative remedy as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter came to an end but Writ Petition No. 1174 of 1986 was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and about 148 casual daily wage workers filed different petitions before the Hon''ble Supreme Court along with the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1174 of 1986, Jitendra Kumar v. Union of India, claiming re-engagement alleging to have worked during construction of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. On 6.9.1990, Writ Petition No. 1174 of 1986 and connected matters were allowed by the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 6.9.1990 in terms of the statement given by the counsel for International Airport Authority of India/ Union of India. On the statement of learned Counsel for the opposite parties, 44 vacancies were notified (04 general + 40 reserved) in different categories. The Apex Court directed to fill up 44 vacancies by giving priority on the basis of length of service rendered as daily wage worker. While disposing of the writ petition, the relief was restricted only in respect of the petitioners before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. All the 148 petitioners, who were before the Hon''ble Supreme Court could not be absorbed due to limited (44) number of vacancies.
In the year 1990, Writ Petition No. 804 of 1990 was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court by one retrenched daily wage worker Chhedi Lal and the Hon''ble Supreme Court extended the benefit of the aforesaid judgment dated 6.9.1990 in respect of Chhedi Lal as well. The present petitioners filed the instant writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 38 15 (S/S) of 1991 claiming re- absorption on the basis of the judgment dated 6.9.1990 and the judgment dated 19.2.1991. The writ petition was filed at belated stage after the lapse of about three years after their disengagement. Sri Pankaj Bajpai was engaged by the Airport Authority of India who also filed counter affidavit representing the case of the opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prepared the rejoinder affidavit and served a copy on Sri Pankaj Bajpai on 30.8.1999. On 14.12.1999, writ petition was shown at serial No. 17 in Court No. 13 before Hon''ble Khem Karan, J. Name of Sri Pankaj Bajpai appearing for the opposite parties was not shown in the cause list. It appears that the cases listed before Hon''ble Khem Karan, J. were transferred before Hon''ble Bhanwar Singh, J. and in absence of the name of learned Counsel for the opposite parties being shown in the cause list, he could not appear and an ex-parte judgment was passed on 14.12.1999. Thus, the present recall application has been moved after the judgment rendered in special appeal giving liberty to the opposite parties to move recall application.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that similar benefit could have been extended to the petitioners and there was no illegality in the order passed by this Court. The order may be an ex-parte order but on merit the same cannot be questioned in any manner. The petitioners have only been extended benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court and therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the then Hon''ble Single Judge.
Submission of learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that when earlier Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1988 was got dismissed as not pressed for availing alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, the second writ petition after the judgment of the Apex Court in the year 1990 could not be maintained and was barred by the principles of res-judicata. It is also submitted that the Apex Court while rendering judgment dated 6.9.1990 restricted the relief only to the extent of 44 persons out of 148 persons, who were before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and did not extend the said benefit to any other person. The Apex Court specifically provided that these petitioners/ appellants would be provided job subject to the condition indicated above, others would not be employed. The restriction which was placed by the Apex Court was overlooked by this Court while deciding the case ex-parte and this Court could not take notice of the aforesaid rider placed by the Apex Court. So far the extension of benefit in favour of Chhedi Lal is concerned, it is submitted that only the Hon''ble Supreme Court could relax the rider placed by it and none else. The High Court was not competent to ignore the rider which was placed by the Apex Court and neither the High Court was competent to relax the aforesaid condition. If the petitioners wanted any relief, then they have approached the Apex Court like Chhedi Lal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The Apex Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1174 of 1986 placed a specific rider in regard to the appointment of other persons and following observation is of significance.
In view of the statement made by Mr. Sibal before us we take it that only these petitioners/ appellants would be provided, subject to the conditions indicated above, others would not be employed.
The rider in the form that ''others would not be employed'' goes to indicate that the Apex Court was specifically of the view that no other person falling in the same category would be given employment. 148 persons approached the Apex Court and out of 148 persons only 44 persons were given concession on the statement of counsel for the International Airport Authority of India but the other persons were denied employment. The petitioners'' Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1988 was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as not pressed with liberty to approach the Labour Court. The second writ petition after the judgment of the Apex Court dated 6.9.1990 is not maintainable and there is specific bar under the Rules of the Court as well as once the earlier writ petition was dismissed, the second writ petition is only an abuse of the process of the Court and is barred by the principles of constructive res-judicata.
So far the extension of benefit of the judgments dated 6.9.1990 and 19.2.1991 is concerned, the same can also not be extended in favour of the petitioners on account of the specific restriction being placed by the Apex Court to the effect that others would not be employed. The petitioners, therefore, could not have been ordered to be re-engaged and it appears that the aforesaid rider placed by the Apex Court was not brought to the notice of the Court and at any cost if similar benefit was required to be extended in favour of the petitioners, then they ought to have approached the Apex Court. The rider placed by the Apex Court could have been relaxed in favour of the petitioners by the Apex Court only. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of Labha Ram and Sons and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, wherein it has been held in paragraph 8 that when a judgment is rendered considering the peculiar facts of the case and when the Court orders that it shall not be treated as a precedent, the same cannot be treated as precedent and neither any reliance can be placed upon the said judgment. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:
However, learned Counsel for the respondents, invited our attention to another decision of a two-Judge Bench in which a different view has been adopted Chint Ram Ram Chand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . Learned Counsel for the appellants on the other hand informed us that subsequently another two Judge Bench of this Court (Majmudar and Kurdukar, JJ.) has decided on 13-2-1998 exactly in accordance with the three-Judge Bench decision in Puran Mal Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (CA 827/98). But learned Judges made it clear that the said decision is "based on the peculiar facts of the case and it shall not be treated as a precedent". Hence, it is not proper to treat that decision as laying down any proposition of law.
The judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge is an ex-parte judgment is not in dispute and even otherwise on merit also claim of the petitioners is not substantiated.
In these circumstances, the judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge dated 14.12.1999 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is dismissed.