Judgment:
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. This order will dispose of the five letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1045 to 1049 of 1992.
2. The learned Single Judge had disposed of five writ petitions in terms of the directions given by the Bench in L.P.A. No. 740 of 1986. Aggrieved by the direction, the State of Punjab had filed these appeals. A few facts may be noticed.
3. The respondents in these appeals were employed on work charge basis on different posts at the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project. These appointments were made after the year 1975. The services of the respondents were terminated on the completion of the Project in the year 1985-86. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities in terminating their services, the employees filed the writ petitions in this Court. It was inter-alia alleged that the State Government had issued policy instructions for regularisation of the services of the persons who had been recruited on workcharge basis. In accordance with the instructions, the employees were entitled to be considered for regularisation. Inspite of that, the respondents had deliberately and ar bitrarily retrenched the petitioners and also numerous other persons who were similarly situated. It was also alleged that an assurance had been given that the ser vices of the employees 'will not be terminated on the completion of the Anandpur Hydel Project. It was categorically assured that the petitioners and persons similarly situated would be transferred to Mukerian Hydel Project'. Claiming that they were entitled to be regularised, the employees prayed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the department to reinstate them and to regularise their services.
4. The department contested the claim. A written statement was filed on their behalf. It was averred that the 'termination of workcharge staff was effected in a phased manner after June 30, 1986 including the petitioners as per Clause 20(1) read with Clause 3 of Certified Standing Orders for workcharged staff of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project governing their service conditions........The services of the surplus workcharged (staff) were terminated and were given terminal benefits for the period they had rendered service on the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project.....'. It was also averred that the surplus workcharged (staff) had been instructed even before the termination of their services to 'get their names registered at Thein Dam Project and Mukerian Hydel Project where the priority is being given for their employment against the available posts. Most of the workmen who got their names registered had already been adjusted by the authorities against the available posts'. On these premises, it was claimed that the writ petition should be dismissed.
5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition in terms of the directions given by the Bench in L.P.A. No. 740 of 1986. These directions were in the following terms :-
'We direct the respondents to take the retrenched employees in other projects or in service of the government according to the qualifications of each of the employees and their fitness. Such absorption of the retrenched employee shall be done within a period of six months from this day. If any relaxation of the age limit is necessary, that shall also have to be done before appointments. The retrenched employees also will be entitled to take into account the service rendered in the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project/Mukerian Hydel Project (in) case they are appointed in pensionable jobs for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. However, it is made clear that any appointment made under this order shall be treated as new appointment for the purpose of seniority among the employees. This relief given is also without prejudice to the retrenchment and any other compensation they may be entitled to under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.'
6. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondent-employees had been recruited for a specific project. On the completion of the work, they were rightly retrenched. Now they cannot be absorhea as no posts are available. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeals be accepted and the directions given by the learned Single Judge be set aside. On behalf of the respondent-employees, it has been urged that the retrenchment was illegal and consequently the directions given by the learned Single Judge should be implemented.
7. It is not disputed that the appointments had been made for the execution of a work. The appointments were co-terminus with the Project. On the completion of the work, the employees had no right to continue in service. Still further, it has been categorically averred in the written statement filed on behalf of the present appellants that the employees had been asked to get their names registered at the Thein Dam Project and Mukerian Hydel Project for their employment against the available posts. Most of the workmen who had got their names registered were actually adjusted. Taken in totality, the action of the department was absolutely just and fair. The recruitment had been made for a Project. On the completion of the work, the workmen had to be retrenched. This was done in conformity with the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. Such amongst them as could be adjusted, were given jobs. It cannot be said that the appellants in retrenching the employees or terminating their services has not been shown to be violative of any provisions of law or instructions. Consequently, it cannot be said that they were arbitrarily thrown out of service or that the action suffered from any illegality.
8. Inspite of this factual position, a direction has been given that the retrenched employees shall be appointed either on Projects or in departments on available posts. It has been represented on behalf of the appellants that the retrenched employees in these cases were not entitled to such a relief. Reliance in support of this claim has been placed on the decision in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited etc. etc. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees' Union Hyderabad, and Anr. etc. etc., J.T. 1995(2) SC 410. Keeping in view the factual position as emerging from the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman had been warned well in time. They were asked to get their names registered. Such amongst them as were careful enough to heed to the advise and had got their names registered were duly adjusted. However, those who chose to take their chance and did not get their names registered cannot have any legitimate cause for complaint. In any event, inspite of being asked, learned counsel for the respondent-workman is unable to indicate that any person junior to them had been adjusted or that such a per son had been retained in service while they were retrenched. If no one junior to the present respondents has been given a preferential treatment by the appellants, there is no basis for any complaint on behalf of the present respondents. It is also relevant to mention that once the services of the workmen had been terminated in conformity with the standing orders, they had no legal right to claim appointment to the post on another Project which was to be run by different authorities. Moreover, the appellants cannot be expected to keep on creating jobs even without any need merely for accommodating the retrenched employees. It has been repeatedly stated on behalf of the appellants that the jobs are not available. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to refer to anything on the record to show that any of the respondent-workman was denied adjustment inspite of the availability of job.
9. Mr. Bajwa states that no seniority list had been prepared by the appellants before ordering retrenchment. Learned counsel concedes that no such plea was raised either at the time of the filing of petition or before the learned Single Judge. It cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal as the department had got no chance to state the factual position in this behalf. Consequently, this contention is rejected.
10. A fact which needs to be noticed is that the Motion Bench while admitting the appeal had stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned single Judge vide its order dated November 12, 1992. More than five years have elapsed since then. Confirmation of the directions given by the learned single judge would place a wholly unreasonable burden on the appellants.
11. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we are unable to uphold the directions given by the learned single Judge. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are reversed. Since, it has not been shown that the action of the department in terminating the services of the workman was contrary to any provision of law, we find that there is no merit in the writ petitions. These are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.