Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. New Delhi Mazdoor Union and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- order  1. admittedly the high court has not granted any relief against the appellants. the appellants, however, have preferred these appeals to agitate only against the finding given that they are the “other authority” within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also states that the respondents in the present appeals have preferred slps challenging the order of the high court refusing them the relief which was claimed by them as writ petitioners before the high court. these petitions are pending in this court.  2. since no relief is granted against the appellants and the appellants in these appeals have only challenged the finding that they are the “other authority” within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution, we feel that these appeals should not be entertained under article 136 of the constitution. we, therefore, dismiss the appeals without expressing any opinion on the point involved which is kept open. however, it will be open to the appellants to challenge the said finding in the slps 9310-14 of 1991 and 9315 of 1991 filed by the respondents and which are pending in this court. there will be no order as to costs.  3. this is a petition under article 32 of the constitution of india by 69 workmen claiming therein that they had been working with the contractor engaged by the respondent-corporation from 1967 onwards till the date of the filing of the petition in 1985. the workmen, therefore, claim that the respondent which is a public undertaking, be directed to regularise them in its employment. the facts reveal that the workmen are working with the barauni unit of the respondent-corporation. by an agreement entered into with all the four unions, before the conciliation officer on july 23, 1984, the management had agreed to consider sympathetically the question of regularisation of those of the workmen who would be found suitable if they are sponsored by the employment exchange and are found fit. after the agreement about 164 vacancies in class iv category of the employees of the corporation arose. the employment exchange sponsored 4023 candidates for the said vacancies. in these candidates 62 of the present petitioners also found their place. the selection committee processed the applications and interviewed the candidates. however, it selected only 5 out of the 62 of the petitioners sponsored by the employment exchange. there is no dispute that those 5 have since been regularised. it further appears that the respondent-corporation became a sick unit, and on april 20, 1992, its case was referred to the bifr. the unit has incurred losses to the tune of rs 1,861 crores. the manpower committee which was appointed to assess the complement required by the unit reported that out of 1360 workmen, 449 workmen were surplus. dr ghosh appearing for the respondent-corporation submitted that today the corporation is faced with the surplus staff of 449 workmen in addition to the monetary losses referred to above. not only, therefore, that there are no vacancies in which the present petitioners can be regularised, but there is a need to retrench 449 workmen from the present workforce.  4. mr suhrawardy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, stated that according to his instructions 64 out of 69 workmen are still working with the contractor in the same unit and since the respondent-corporation needs the work of the workmen, there should be no reason why the workmen concerned should not be regularised. according to us this contention is not merited for several reasons. the corporation has its own rules for recruitment and regularisation. on the occurrence of 164 vacancies, the management had agreed to regularise those of the present petitioners who would be found suitable and sponsored by the employment exchange (which is a condition precedent for entertainment of the applications for employment). the unions also agreed that those of the petitioners who would be sponsored by the employment exchange and found fit may be considered for regularisation. as far as the petitioners are concerned, admittedly at least 7 of them were not sponsored by the employment exchange, and out of 62 who were sponsored, 57 were not found fit. they cannot, therefore, claim regularisation. what is further as stated above, at present, the respondent-corporation has itself become a sick unit and out of the regular work force not less than 449 of its workmen are surplus. it is not, therefore, possible to give any direction to the respondent-corporation to consider the regularisation of the remaining petitioners even if they are fit to be employed in the corporation.  5. in the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition and discharge the rule.  6. however, there will be no order as to costs.