S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The management of Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited, Hospet, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th December, 1998 in The Management of Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited, Hospet, Bellary District v. A.B. Patil and Anr., ILR 1999 Kar. 4006 has come up with this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal has refused to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, Hubli.
2. The events leading to the filing of the writ appeal be noted briefly as under:
The appellant-Company is a Company engaged in fabrication of specialised material in the construction of radial gates and other materials for the dams. The Company undertakes the work of erection of gates etc., at various places in the country, including in the State of Karnataka. When the Company had undertaken project work at Anjuman in the State of Goa in the year 1985, it engaged the services of Sri A.B. Patil, the 1st respondent herein and certain others as casual labourers by order No. RE/ST/F.28/1105, dated 28-9-1985 issued by the Resident Engineer of the appellant-Company and a copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-B at page 90 of the material papers. It reads as follows:
'TUNGABHADRA STEEL PRODUCTS LIMITED
Supa Project, Ganeshgudi (U.K.)
No. RE/ST/F.28/1105 Date: 28-9-1985 From
R.E., Supa,
To
Manager (I and S)
Sir,
Sub: Appointment of casual labourers for the month of September 1985 at Anjuman Project -- Reg.
Approval may please be accorded for appointment of the following casual labourers at Anjuman Project, for the period mentioned against their names, as below.--
________________________________________________________________Sl. Name/Father's name Designation Rate/day PeriodNo. ________________________________________________________________1. Sri AB. Patil, S/o. Supervisor Rs. 16/- 20-9-1985Basavanth Rao Patil. 30-9-1985________________________________________________________________ 2. xxx xxx xxx________________________________________________________________ 3. xxx xxx xxx________________________________________________________________ 4. xxx xxx xxx________________________________________________________________ Sd/-
Resident Engineer,
T.S.P. Limited'
It is an admitted case that the services of the 1st respondent were not terminated immediately after 30-9-1985 as contemplated in the appointment order at Annexure-B, On the other hand, admittedly the services of the 1st respondent-workman had been availed of by the management of the Company at construction sites at Supa, Alamatti and again at Supa. It is also an admitted position that the services of the 1st respondent-workman had been continuously made use of by the Company till 30th August, 1989. When the matter stood thus, the Manager (I and S) issued the order No. Perso/Supa/Project/1824, dated 30-8-1989 terminating the services of the 1st respondent-workman. The copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-C at page 91 of the material papers. It reads as follows:
'TUNGABHADRA STEEL PRODUCTS LIMITED
GRAMS: TUNGASTEEL Phone Nos. : 8749, 8229Telex: 0818-216 Hospet: 8260(Subsidiary of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited)
A joint undertaking of the Government of India and Governments of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
Tungabhadra Dam - 583 225 (Karnataka)
Ref. No. Perso/Supa/Project/1824
Date: 30-8-1989
By Regd. Post A.D.
ORDER OF DISCHARGE
Sub: Estt. Sri A.B. Patil, Supervisor on Casual basis at Supa Project -- Discharge from service -- Orders-Reg.
You have been working as Supervisor at Supa Project. Due to technical errors, the order of discharge passed on 8-4-1989 has been withdrawn. In view of the closing down of site works, there is absolutely no work which can be provided to you. Hence, you are discharged from services with effect from 6-9-1989. In respect of services rendered, compensation calculated at the rate of 15 days pay per each year of service in addition to the notice pay of one month is hereby offered to you by Cheque No. 120949, dated 30-8-1989. You are hereby directed to acknowledge the same. In respect of other dues, you can contact the Accounts Department at Tungabhadra Dam to get your accounts finally settled after producing clearance certificates in regard to tools and tackles, stores, Accounts and Office files, etc.
Sd/-
Manager (I and S)
30-8-1989'.
3. The workman being aggrieved by the above action of the management, instituted KID. No. 40 of 1990 in the Labour Court, Hubli, under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') praying for setting aside the order of termination at Annexure-B and seeking consequential reliefs such as reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. In the claim statement filed before the Labour Court, the workman contended that, he was appointed to work as Supervisor at the Anjuman Project at Goa on 20-9-1985 on daily wages of Rs. 16/- per day; later he was transferred to work at Supa Dam and while working at Supa Dam, in the year 1987, he was again transferred to work at Alamatti Dam in Belgaum District and again he was brought back to Supa Dam Project. It was also contended that, though there has been need for the personnel on regular basis, the management has been engaging the services of the workmen on daily wage basis without paying them equal pay on the terms of principle 'equal pay for equal work'.
4. Opposing the claim of the 1st respondent-workman, the management filed counter-statement contending that the services of the workman had been engaged at Goa construction site on 28-9-1985 and after work was over at that site, the 1st respondent-workman was transferred to Supa Dam Project where there was erection work and subsequently he was posted to Alamatti Dam and he was again brought back to Supa Dam Project; the workman is not a technical hand and he was engaged only on daily wage basis for attending to the miscellaneous work of the management; since the work of the Company at Supa Dam was completed leaving only some minor works to be continued, for which, there was no need of services of the workman, his services were terminated by the order at Annexure-B, dated 30-8-1989. The management contended that the action taken by it in terminating the services of the 1st respondent-workman is legal, as well as justified.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues:
'1. Whether the respondent is justified in terminating the services of claimant-Sri A.B. Patil, with effect from 30-8-1989?
2. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled for?'
The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on appreciation of theevidence on record and the law governing the situation, concluded thatthe 1st respondent-workman was working as a permanent workman atthe time of termination of his services; therefore, the impugned action ofthe management in terminating the services vide Annexure-B is illegal.So opining, the learned Presiding Officer directed reinstatement of the1st respondent-workman into service with full back wages by awarddated 1-8-1998.
6. The management being aggrieved by the award, assailed the validity of the same before this Court in Tungabhadra Steel Product Limited's case, supra. Similar contentions raised by the management before the Labour Court were reiterated before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge without agreeing with the contentions and without finding any flaw in the factual finding recorded by the Industrial Judge, dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 18th December, 1998. Hence, this writ appeal by the aggrieved management.
7. We have heard Sri B.C. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the management and Sri S.V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the workman. Sri Prabhakar would strenuously contend that the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court that the 1st respondent-workman had acquired permanency in the post at the relevant point of time when Annexure-B was issued, is perverse for want of any legal evidence and such an inference could not have been drawn by the Labour Court solely on the basis that after completion of the work at Anjuman Dam Project in Goa, the services of the 1st respondent-workman were utilised by the management at the Dam site at Supa and later at the Alamatti Dam site, and again at Supa Dam site. Sri Prabhakar also contended that, it is satisfactorily established by the management before the Labour Court that the purpose for which the services of the 1st respondent-workman were engaged came to an end and, therefore, there was no justification, legal or factual, in directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman into service and the finding tantamounts to asking the management to do something impossible. Sri Prabhakar also contended that, since admittedly the services of the 1st respondent-workman were initially engaged on a casual and temporary basis, simply because he was continued in the service of the Company for four years and more, that fact itself would not render his official status as permanent and despite of putting in four years of service, his status would continue to be temporary and casual only, and in that regard, learned Counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. Hindustan Fertilizers Corporation Limited, 1995-I-LLJ-192 (MP). In support of the contention that Section 25F of the Act has no application in the case of daily wage employees, Sri Prabhakar placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Telecom District Manager, Belgaum and Ors. v. A.A. Angali and Ors., 2000(6) Kar. L.J. 327 (DB) : ILR 2000 Kar. 2962 (DB) : 2000 LLR 1219 and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., : [1997]3SCR368 , Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ors., : (1994)IILLJ977SC and Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Limited and Anr. v. Ram Niwas and Anr., : (2002)IILLJ1153SC .
8. Sri S.V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-workman, on the other hand, would highlight the fact that the orchestral song of the management, both before the Labour Court and before the learned Single Judge, was that the employment of the 1st respondent-workman was on casual and daily wage basis, and therefore, his case squarely falls within the excepted category of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, but, the management has utterly failed to establish necessary facts in order to attract the provisions of Clause (bb). In that view of the matter, Sri Shastry would maintain that, no exception could be taken to the factual finding recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Hubli, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
9. In the light of the rival contentions, the question that arises for our decision is whether any ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench, To answer this question, it becomes imperative for the Court to decide whether the opinion of the learned Single Judge with regard to the non-application of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act to the facts of this case is justified or not. This question need not detain the Court for long.
10. The facts are uncontroversial. It is a fact that, as per Annexure-B at page 90 of the material papers, the services 1st respondent-workman and certain others were engaged on casual basis and for a specified period, to be specific, for a period from 20-9-1985 to 30-9-1985, that is to say for 11 days. It is nobody's case that, after the expiry of 11 days, as contemplated in the appointment order dated 28-9-1985, the services of the 1st respondent were terminated and again a fresh appointment order was issued to the 1st respondent-workman at Anjuman Dam Project in Goa. But, it is an admitted fact that, despite the expiry of 11 days, the services of the 1st respondent-workman were utilised by the management at the Anjuman Darn site in Goa and subsequently he was transferred to work at Dam site in Supa, then, to the Dam site at Alamatti and again back to Dam site, Supa. In addition to these established facts, it is also pertinent to notice the evidence of M.W. 1 produced at page 114 of the material papers. The following statement made by the witness is very material according to us and it has vital bearing in the decision making. It reads as follows:
If translated, it reads as follows:
'For the Project work, at first, we will send the required staff from Head Office. And the temporary workers required by us will be taken there. Temporary workers will be appointed by the Engineer who is present there'.
This statement of the witness of the management clearly speaks about the accepted practice of the management in employing the personnel required by them for Dam constructions undertaken by them at different places in the country. Services of temporary workmen at a particular Dam site are utilized by employing local people on temporary basis and after the completion of the work at such place, the services of such temporary workmen would be dispensed with. It is an admitted fact that, in the instant case, the management did not terminate the services of the 1st respondent-workman after completion of the work at the Dam site at Anjuman in Goa. Despite the completion of the work there and despite the fact that the term of the appointment as reflected in Annexure-B spent itself long back, the services of the 1st respondent-workman were continued by the management not only at the Anjuman Dam site, but also subsequently at the Dam site in Supa and Dam site in Alamatti and again at Dam site in Supa. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the 1st respondent-workman was not regarded as a casual temporary employee by the management, as lightly understood by the management witness himself If the 1st respondent-workman was actually considered to be a temporary employee employed for a specific period for a specific work at a particular Dam site, in the normal course, his services would have been terminated by the management after the Dam work was completed. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the inference drawn by the Industrial Judge, and accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court that at the time the 1st respondent-workman's services were terminated vide Annexure-B, he had acquired permanency in the post, is impermissible or illegal. It is well-settled that the fact-finding quasi-judicial Tribunals and the Courts are entitled to draw inference from the established facts.
11. The judgment cited by Sri Prabhakar in A.A. Angali's case, supra, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case, supra, Madhyamik Siksha Parishad's case, supra and Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Limited's case, supra, have absolutely no application to the facts of this case. Those decisions are the authorities to state that, if a person is appointed on casual or temporary basis or on daily wage basis and for a specific term, termination of such employment on expiry of the term of appointment, does not come within the purview of 'retrenchment' as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act, and in such case, there was no need for the management to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and to say that if the services of a workman are engaged by management for the purpose of the project and exclusively for a term which is coterminous with the completion of the project, such employee would not have any legal right to insist that the management despite the completion of project work for which he was appointed should continue to employ him, as a matter of right or as a matter of course. We are unable to understand as to how this principle would have any application to, the facts of this case.
12. It is quite often said and reiterated by the Courts that, while reviewing the findings recorded by the Industrial Courts, the Court should not lightly interfere unless the Court finds that the factual finding's recorded by the Industrial Court are perverse for want of substantive legal evidence. The Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence, on the basis of which, such findings are recorded by the Industrial Court. Only in a given case, where the Court finds no evidence at all in support of factual finding, then, it would step in and correct the finding recorded by the Industrial Court. This case is not one such case. The factual findings recorded by the Industrial Court could be sustained not only on the basis of the established facts, but also drawing an inference from the established facts.
13. However, with great respect, we could not persuade ourselves to fall in line with the opinion of the learned Judge as reflected in para 17 of the impugned judgment. The learned Judge has stated that 'It is also well-settled principle of law that if a workman is employed either as a casual employee or on contract basis rendered 240 days of continuous service, he shall be absorbed and regularised in his post'. The above statement does not reflect the correct position in law. It is well-settled by the judgment in B.C. Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka and Ors., that, merely because a workman/employee has put in 240 days of continuous service, only on that basis, he is not entitled to seek regularisation of services as a matter of right. Therefore, the above observation of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly we set aside.
In the result, we dismiss the writ appeal subject to the above observation with no order as to costs.