Sri Barun Kumar Sukul and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/857975
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnMar-25-2009
Case NumberM.A.T. No. 612 of 2008
JudgeDebi Prasad Sengupta and ;Debasish Kar Gupta, JJ.
ActsEmployment Exchange (CNV) Act, 1959; ;Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 226 and 311
AppellantSri Barun Kumar Sukul and ors.
RespondentSteel Authority of India and ors.
Appellant AdvocateJayanta Mitra, ;Kishore Datta and ;Sunita Shaw, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateA. Chowhury, ;Supriyo Bose, ;Saumya Ghosh, ;Amitava Roy, Advs. and ;K.H. Dasan, Adv. for Respondent No. 6
Cases Referred and Official Liquidator v. Dyanand and Ors.
Excerpt:
- debasish kar gupta, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated june 20, 2008, passed in w.p. no. 5690(w) of 2004. the above writ application was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.2. according to the appellants a settlement dated october 11, 1972 was arrived at agreeing by and between the durgapur employees co-operative society ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the said society), the durgapur steel plant employees co-operative society ltd., workers' union (hereinafter referred to as the said union) in presence of the conciliation officer and assistant labour commissioner, durgapur to implement the following terms of settlement:(a) the staff of the said society would be treated at per with the staff of the durgapur steel plant for the purpose of allotment of residential accommodation.(b) the staff of the said society would be treated at per with the contract labour for the purpose of absorption as unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant.(c) each ward of the staff of the said society would be given by the said society tuition allowance or rs. 10/- only which ever was less.3. the above settlement was followed by a meeting dated april 20, 1979, in which it was agreed that a suitable quota of the available vacancies would be fixed for appointment of staff of the said society in respect of vacancies of unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant. the personal officer (recruitment) was also requested to examine the issue for sending a proposal to the respondent no. 2 for his approval. by a communication dated june 27, 1979, the respondent no. 5 informed the secretary of the said union that the respondent no. 2 had earmarked a quota of 5% of the vacancies of unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant for appointment of the staff of the said society. for the purpose of appointment of 196 employees of the said society, the respondent no. 5 approached the secretary to the government of west bengal, labour department, by a communication dated december 8, 1980, for exemption from the provisions of employment exchange (cnv) act, 1959.4. since the respondent did not take any steps to appoint those staff of the said society whose names had not been figured in the aforesaid list of 196 staff of the said society, an application under article 226 of the constitution of india being w.p. no. 17130(w) of 2001 was filed by appellants and the same was disposed of by an order dated august 1, 2003 directing the policy making body of the respondent steel plant to look into the grievances of the appellants in the context of the aforesaid decision dated june 27, 1979 as also for extending the benefit of the above decision dated june 27, 1979 to the appellants in the event of holding that the above decision should cover all the persons engaged by the said society.5. pursuant to the above directions the respondent no. 2, by an order dated november 24, 2003, rejected the claim of the appellants to treat them at per with the contract labour for the purpose of employment under the respondent no. 1 in its durgapur steel plant on the basis of the purported legal right arising out of the settlement dated october 11, 1972 or to maintain a quota of 5% for the staff of the said society to fill up the vacancies of unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant.6. the subject matter of challenge in the writ application which gave raise to this appeal was the aforesaid order dated november 24, 2003, passed by the respondent no. 2. the above writ application being w.p. no. 5690(w) of 2004 was dismissed on june 20, 2008, upholding the order dated november 24, 2003, which had been passed by the respondent no. 2.7. it is submitted on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners that the order dated november 24, 2003, which had been passed by the respondent no. 2, was arbitrary and it was based upon no evidence. according to the appellants, the first writ application being w.p. no. 17130(w) of 2001 was disposed of with a finding that there was an ambiguity with regard to the obligation of the durgapur steel plant to consider the cases of these staff of the said society for absorption in services who were not on the rolls of the said society on the date of signing the memorandum of settlement dated october 11, 1972 and/or whose names were not figured in the purported frozen list of 196 staff of the said society. according to the appellants that was an admitted position. it is the contention of the appellants that the learned single judge did not look into the unreasonableness of the order dated november 24, 2003, of the respondent no. 2. the respondent no. 2 did not consider the fact that the durgapur steel authority extended two other benefits in terms the memorandum of settlement dated october 11, 1972 to the staff of the said society who were not on the rolls of the said society at the time of signing the above memorandum of settlement. those were (i) benefit of residential accommodation, and (ii) benefit of giving tuition allowance to each ward of staff of the said society. according to the appellants denial of extending the remaining benefit of absorption of staff of the said society in the vacancies of unskilled worker in durgapur steel plant was arbitrary and unreasonable.8. the second limb of submission of the appellants is that had the opportunity of hearing been given to them by the respondent no. 2, his attention would have been drawn to the materials relating to extension of two other benefits to those staff of the said society whose names had not been figured in the purported frozen list of 196 staff of the said society. according to them such denial resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.9. the appellants relies upon the decisions of van diemen's land company v. marine board of table cape reported in (1906) ac 92; watcham v. attorney general of the east affrica protectorate reported in (1919) ac 533 and president et syndics de la commune de laprairie v. compagnie de jesus reported in (1921)1 ac 314, to submit that in order to remove ambiguity in respect of the terms of an instrument the relevant materials on record, contemporaneous usage of the parties as also the conduct of the parties should have been taken into consideration to remove such ambiguity. reliance is placed on the decision of re godden reported in 1971(3) all er 20 and anisminic ltd. v. the foreign compensation commission and anr. reported in (1969) 1 all er 208, to submit that in case of discharging judicial function of removing ambiguity, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the aggrieved party. relying upon the decision of barium chemicals ltd. and anr. v. company law board and ors. reported in : [1967]1scr898 , it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that formation of subjective opinion depends upon existence of relevant facts. reliance is placed on the decisions of jaswant singh v. state of punjab and ors. reported in : air1991sc385 and indian nut products and ors. v. union of india and ors. reported in : [1994]3scr1023 , to submit that the order dated november 24, 2003 of the respondent no. 2 should have been set aside by the learned single judge because the same was based on no evidence.10. the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7, i.e. the said society, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. it is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 6, that in view of the admitted fact of fixing a quota of 5% vacancies in the category of unskilled workers of durgapur steel plant for appointment of the staff of said society without restricting such quota for those staff who were on the rolls of the said society, the other staff of the said society had a legitimate expectation of their appointment under the durgapur steel plant. the learned counsel relies upon the decision of sethi auto service station and anr. v. delhi development authority reported in : air2009sc904 , in support of the above submission.11. in support of the impugned judgment, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that the settlement dated october 11, 1972 was a tri-partite settlements. durgapur steel plant employees co-operative society limited, durgapur employees co-operative society ltd., workers' union and the conciliation officer & assistant labour commissioner were the parties to the settlement. steel authority of india ltd., or durgapur steel plant were not the parties to that settlement. so, the settlement dated october 11, 1972 was not binding upon them. it is further submitted that the appellants were also not the parties to the above settlement. therefore, the aforesaid settlement did not confer any enforceable right upon them.12. with regard to the extension of the benefit of paying tuition allowance to ward of staff of the said society who were not in the roll of the said society on the date of signing the memorandum of settlement, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that it was the obligation of the said society in terms of the above settlement.13. regarding the extension of benefit of residential accommodation to the existing staff of the said society it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the same has no bearing on the issue of absorption of those staff of the said society under durgapur steel plant.14. it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that earmarking of a quota of 5% vacancies of unskilled worker in durgarpur steel plant for appointing the staff of the said society was a policy decision. it was done as one time measure on the basis of a decision as committed by the respondent no. 5 in his communication dated june 27, 1979 on the basis of such policy decision the respondent authority accepted a list of 196 staff of the said society who were on the rolls of the said society in the year 1979. the respondent authority approached the labour department of the government of west bengal for exemption from the provisions of employment exchange (cnv) act, 1959, to give appointment to those staff of the said society ultimately, 89 staff of the said society out of the list of 196 staff were found eligible and they were appointed in the services of the durgapur steel plant in 1992.15. it is further submitted that nothing was on record to the effect that any individual staff of the said society approached the respondent authority thereafter for his appointment. no further claim was raised till filing of the first writ application in the year 2001, i.e. during a period of nine years, for appointment of any other staff of the said society in durgapur steel project. so, the earmarking of a quota of 5% vacancies in the post of unskilled worker in durgapur steel plant for staff of the said society who were on the rolls of the said society at the material point of time as an one time measure, was a possible view.16. according to the respondent authorities, once a possible view was taken in respect of a policy decision, the court should not interfere with such policy decision and the court should not interfere with such policy decision in course of judicial review. it is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was necessary in accordance with law to take a policy decision.17. reliance is placed on the decision of balco employee' union(regd.) v. union of india and ors. reported in : (2002)illj550sc to submit that in case of taking a policy decision principles of natural justice have no role to play. relying upon the decision of ram prasad vishwakarma v. chairman, industrial tribunal, patna and ors. reported in : (1961)illj504sc , it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that where workers' union was a party to a tri-partite settlement, the individual worker could not raise any dispute on the basis of such settlement. relying upon the decisions of secretary, state of karnataka v. uma devi(3) and ors. reported in : (2006)iillj722sc and official liquidator v. dyanand and ors. reported in : (2009)iiillj305sc , it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that on the basis of the settled principles of law of the land, the appellants have no legal right for appointment in durgapur steel plant.18. we have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties at length and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. firstly, we find that the memorandum settlement dated october 11, 1972 (at page 43 of the paper book), was signed by three parties, namely, (i) the representatives of the said society, (ii) representatives of the durgapur employees co-operative society ltd., workers' union, and (iii) the conciliation officer & assistant labour commissioner, durgapur. admittedly, the steel authority of india or durgapur steel plant (an unit under the steel authority of india) was not a party to the aforesaid settlement. so, the settlement was not binding upon the steel authority of india or durgapur steel plant.19. however, from the communication dated june 27, 1979 issued by the respondent no. 5 it transpires that the respondent authority decided to fill up 5% of the vacancies of unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant from amongst the employees of the said society.20. in our considered view, the above decision was an executive policy of the respondent authority. there was an ambiguity in that policy regarding consideration of those employees of the said society in respect of the above quota who were not on the roll of the said society.21. a learned single judge of this court, while disposing of the first writ application in the matter being w.p. no. 171030(w) of 2001 on august 1, 2003(at page 73 of the paper book), came to a conclusion that the decision of the respondent authority as communicated by a memo dated june 27, 1979(at page 51 of the paper book) did not create any unambiguous independent right in favour of those employees of the said society who were not on the roll of the said society on the date of settlement dated october 11, 1972 to come within the quota of 5% vacancies of unskilled workers in durgapur steel plant for their appointment. that was accepted to be an admitted position by all the parties to that proceeding. in our considered view, the learned single judge rightly directed the policy making body of durgapur steel plant to look into the grievances of the appellants in the context of the decision as communicated under memo dated june 27, 1979.22. on a close scrutiny of the order dated november 24, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 2, we find that nothing reflected from the above order to substantiate that the policy making body of respondent authority took any decision to remove the ambiguity in the executive policy under reference.23. noteworthy that durgapur steel plant was an unit of the steel authority of india. the respondent no. 2, being the managing director of durgapur steel plant (an unit of the steel authority of india), might be an indispensable personnel in discharging the administrative function of durgapur steel plant but as an individual he was not properly appointed authority to deal with removal of an ambiguity in executive policy without reference to the decision making body. if such an order was passed, a writ court in course of judicial review should declare that order as a nullity on the grounds of arbitrariness and based on no evidence.24. therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the decision making process of the order dated november 24, 2003 cannot be sustained in law.25. however, we do not find any substance in the second limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the rules of principles of natural justice requires an opportunity of hearing in this case of removing ambiguity in respect of an executive policy decision. the law has been settled in this regard in the matter of balco employees union(regd) (supra) and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:47. process of disinvestment is a policy decision involving complex economic factors. the courts have consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions as it has been recognised that economic expediencies lack adjudicative disposition and unless the economic decision, based on economic expendiencies, is demonstrated to be so violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, that the courts would decline to interfere. in matters relating to economic issues, the government has, while taking a decision, right to 'trial and error' as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority. there is no case made out by the petitioner that the decision to disinvest in balco is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed. even though the workers may have interest in the manner in which the company is conducting its business, inasmuch as its policy decision may have an impact on the workers' rights, nevertheless it is an incidence of service for an employee to accept decision of the employer which has been honestly taken an which is not contrary to lay. even a government servant, having the protection of not only article 14 and 16 of the constitution but also of article 311, has no absolute right to remain in service. for example, apart from cases of disciplinary action, the services of government servants can be terminated if posts are abolished. if such employee cannot make a grievance based on part iii of the constitution or article 311 then it cannot stand to reason that like the petitioners, non-government employees working in a company which by reason of judicial pronouncement may be regarded as a state for the purpose of part iii of the constitution, can claim a superior or a better right than a government servant and impugn its change of status. in taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. while it is expected of a responsible employer to take all aspects into consideration including welfare of the labour before taking any policy decision that, by itself, will not entitle the employees to demand a right of hearing or consultation prior to the taking of the decision. 26. the decision of balco employees(regd) (supra) is applicable in the instant case up to the extent indicated hereinabove taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case. in the matter of ram prosad (supra) the issue was right of an individual workman for his representation through representative of his own choice in respect of a reference under the industrial dispute act, 1947. it has no manner of application in the matter of a judicial review in a writ proceeding. in the mattes of secretary, state of karnataka(supra) and official liquidator(supra), the right of absorption of ad-hoc, temporary employees in public employment was decided. in view of distinguishable facts and circumstances of the instant case, those decisions have no manner of application in the instant case of removing ambiguity in an executive policy.27. we find no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent no. 7 that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applicable in this case. because in the case in our hand it was not the claim of the appellants that they relied upon any representation which was free from ambiguity to create any legal right in their favour and denial of expectation worked to their detriment. for the above reason the decision of sethi auto service station(supra) does not help the case of the appellants.28. on the basis of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, the judgment and order dated june 20, 2008 passed in w.p. no. 5690(w) of 2004 is quashed and set aside. consequent thereupon the order dated november 24, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 2 is also quashed and set aside. we direct the policy making body of the respondent authority to remove the ambiguity in its executive policy with regard to the right of those staff of the said society, who were not on the roll of the said society on the material date, to be appointed in 5% quota of unskilled worker of durgapur steel plant by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two moths from the dated of communication of this order.29. there will be, however, no order as to costs.debi prasad sengupta, j. 30. i agree.
Judgment:

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 20, 2008, passed in W.P. No. 5690(W) of 2004. The above writ application was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.

2. According to the appellants a settlement dated October 11, 1972 was arrived at agreeing by and between the Durgapur Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the said society), the Durgapur Steel Plant Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the said union) in presence of the conciliation officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durgapur to implement the following terms of settlement:

(a) The staff of the said Society would be treated at per with the staff of the Durgapur Steel Plant for the purpose of allotment of residential accommodation.

(b) The staff of the said society would be treated at per with the contract labour for the purpose of absorption as unskilled workers in Durgapur Steel Plant.

(c) Each ward of the staff of the said Society would be given by the said Society tuition allowance or Rs. 10/- only which ever was less.

3. The above settlement was followed by a meeting dated April 20, 1979, in which it was agreed that a suitable quota of the available vacancies would be fixed for appointment of staff of the said Society in respect of vacancies of unskilled workers in Durgapur Steel Plant. The Personal Officer (Recruitment) was also requested to examine the issue for sending a proposal to the respondent No. 2 for his approval. By a communication dated June 27, 1979, the respondent No. 5 informed the Secretary of the said union that the respondent No. 2 had earmarked a quota of 5% of the vacancies of unskilled workers in Durgapur Steel Plant for appointment of the staff of the said Society. For the purpose of appointment of 196 employees of the said Society, the respondent No. 5 approached the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, by a communication dated December 8, 1980, for exemption from the provisions of Employment Exchange (CNV) Act, 1959.

4. Since the respondent did not take any steps to appoint those staff of the said Society whose names had not been figured in the aforesaid list of 196 staff of the said Society, an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India being W.P. No. 17130(W) of 2001 was filed by appellants and the same was disposed of by an order dated August 1, 2003 directing the policy making body of the respondent Steel Plant to look into the grievances of the appellants in the context of the aforesaid decision dated June 27, 1979 as also for extending the benefit of the above decision dated June 27, 1979 to the appellants in the event of holding that the above decision should cover all the persons engaged by the said society.

5. Pursuant to the above directions the respondent No. 2, by an order dated November 24, 2003, rejected the claim of the appellants to treat them at per with the contract labour for the purpose of employment under the respondent No. 1 in its Durgapur Steel Plant on the basis of the purported legal right arising out of the settlement dated October 11, 1972 or to maintain a quota of 5% for the staff of the said Society to fill up the vacancies of unskilled workers in Durgapur steel Plant.

6. The subject matter of challenge in the writ application which gave raise to this appeal was the aforesaid order dated November 24, 2003, passed by the respondent No. 2. The above writ application being W.P. No. 5690(W) of 2004 was dismissed on June 20, 2008, upholding the order dated November 24, 2003, which had been passed by the respondent No. 2.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners that the order dated November 24, 2003, which had been passed by the respondent No. 2, was arbitrary and it was based upon no evidence. According to the appellants, the first writ application being W.P. No. 17130(W) of 2001 was disposed of with a finding that there was an ambiguity with regard to the obligation of the Durgapur Steel Plant to consider the cases of these staff of the said Society for absorption in services who were not on the rolls of the said Society on the date of signing the Memorandum of settlement dated October 11, 1972 and/or whose names were not figured in the purported frozen list of 196 staff of the said society. According to the appellants that was an admitted position. It is the contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge did not look into the unreasonableness of the order dated November 24, 2003, of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 did not consider the fact that the Durgapur Steel Authority extended two other benefits in terms the Memorandum of Settlement dated October 11, 1972 to the staff of the said Society who were not on the rolls of the said Society at the time of signing the above Memorandum of settlement. Those were (i) benefit of residential accommodation, and (ii) benefit of giving tuition allowance to each ward of staff of the said Society. According to the appellants denial of extending the remaining benefit of absorption of staff of the said Society in the vacancies of unskilled worker in Durgapur Steel Plant was arbitrary and unreasonable.

8. The second limb of submission of the appellants is that had the opportunity of hearing been given to them by the respondent No. 2, his attention would have been drawn to the materials relating to extension of two other benefits to those staff of the said Society whose names had not been figured in the purported frozen list of 196 staff of the said Society. According to them such denial resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. The appellants relies upon the decisions of Van Diemen's Land Company v. Marine Board Of Table Cape reported in (1906) AC 92; Watcham v. Attorney General of The East Affrica Protectorate reported in (1919) AC 533 and President ET Syndics De La Commune De Laprairie v. Compagnie De Jesus reported in (1921)1 AC 314, to submit that in order to remove ambiguity in respect of the terms of an instrument the relevant materials on record, contemporaneous usage of the parties as also the conduct of the parties should have been taken into consideration to remove such ambiguity. Reliance is placed on the decision of Re Godden reported in 1971(3) ALL ER 20 and Anisminic Ltd. v. The Foreign Compensation Commission and Anr. reported in (1969) 1 ALL ER 208, to submit that in case of discharging judicial function of removing ambiguity, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the aggrieved party. Relying upon the decision of Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Company Law Board and Ors. reported in : [1967]1SCR898 , it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that formation of subjective opinion depends upon existence of relevant facts. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in : AIR1991SC385 and Indian Nut Products and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : [1994]3SCR1023 , to submit that the order dated November 24, 2003 of the respondent No. 2 should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge because the same was based on no evidence.

10. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, i.e. the said Society, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 6, that in view of the admitted fact of fixing a quota of 5% vacancies in the category of unskilled workers of Durgapur Steel Plant for appointment of the staff of said Society without restricting such quota for those staff who were on the rolls of the said Society, the other staff of the said Society had a legitimate expectation of their appointment under the Durgapur Steel Plant. The learned Counsel relies upon the decision of Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority reported in : AIR2009SC904 , in support of the above submission.

11. In support of the impugned judgment, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that the settlement dated October 11, 1972 was a tri-partite settlements. Durgapur Steel Plant Employees Co-operative Society Limited, Durgapur Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Workers' Union and the conciliation officer & Assistant Labour Commissioner were the parties to the settlement. Steel Authority of India Ltd., or Durgapur Steel Plant were not the parties to that settlement. So, the settlement dated October 11, 1972 was not binding upon them. It is further submitted that the appellants were also not the parties to the above settlement. Therefore, the aforesaid settlement did not confer any enforceable right upon them.

12. With regard to the extension of the benefit of paying tuition allowance to ward of staff of the said society who were not in the roll of the said Society on the date of signing the Memorandum of settlement, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that it was the obligation of the said Society in terms of the above settlement.

13. Regarding the extension of benefit of residential accommodation to the existing staff of the said Society it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the same has no bearing on the issue of absorption of those staff of the said Society under Durgapur Steel Plant.

14. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that earmarking of a quota of 5% vacancies of unskilled worker in Durgarpur Steel Plant for appointing the staff of the said Society was a policy decision. It was done as one time measure on the basis of a decision as committed by the respondent No. 5 in his communication dated June 27, 1979 on the basis of such policy decision the respondent authority accepted a list of 196 staff of the said Society who were on the rolls of the said Society in the year 1979. The respondent authority approached the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal for exemption from the provisions of Employment Exchange (CNV) Act, 1959, to give appointment to those staff of the said Society ultimately, 89 staff of the said Society out of the list of 196 staff were found eligible and they were appointed in the services of the Durgapur Steel Plant in 1992.

15. It is further submitted that nothing was on record to the effect that any individual staff of the said Society approached the respondent authority thereafter for his appointment. No further claim was raised till filing of the first writ application in the year 2001, i.e. during a period of nine years, for appointment of any other staff of the said Society in Durgapur Steel Project. So, the earmarking of a quota of 5% vacancies in the post of unskilled worker in Durgapur Steel Plant for staff of the said society who were on the rolls of the said Society at the material point of time as an one time measure, was a possible view.

16. According to the respondent authorities, once a possible view was taken in respect of a policy decision, the court should not interfere with such policy decision and the court should not interfere with such policy decision in course of judicial review. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was necessary in accordance with law to take a policy decision.

17. Reliance is placed on the decision of Balco Employee' Union(Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : (2002)ILLJ550SC to submit that in case of taking a policy decision principles of natural justice have no role to play. Relying upon the decision of Ram Prasad Vishwakarma v. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Ors. reported in : (1961)ILLJ504SC , it is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that where workers' union was a party to a tri-partite settlement, the individual worker could not raise any dispute on the basis of such settlement. Relying upon the decisions of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) and Ors. reported in : (2006)IILLJ722SC and Official Liquidator v. Dyanand and Ors. reported in : (2009)IIILLJ305SC , it is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that on the basis of the settled principles of law of the land, the appellants have no legal right for appointment in Durgapur Steel Plant.

18. We have heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties at length and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Firstly, we find that the Memorandum settlement dated October 11, 1972 (at page 43 of the paper book), was signed by three parties, namely, (i) the representatives of the said society, (ii) representatives of the Durgapur Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Workers' union, and (iii) the Conciliation Officer & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durgapur. Admittedly, the Steel Authority of India or Durgapur Steel Plant (an unit under the Steel Authority of India) was not a party to the aforesaid settlement. So, the settlement was not binding upon the Steel Authority of India or Durgapur Steel Plant.

19. However, from the communication dated June 27, 1979 issued by the respondent No. 5 it transpires that the respondent authority decided to fill up 5% of the vacancies of unskilled workers in Durgapur Steel Plant from amongst the employees of the said Society.

20. In our considered view, the above decision was an executive policy of the respondent authority. There was an ambiguity in that policy regarding consideration of those employees of the said Society in respect of the above quota who were not on the roll of the said Society.

21. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the first writ application in the matter being W.P. No. 171030(W) of 2001 on August 1, 2003(at page 73 of the paper book), came to a conclusion that the decision of the respondent authority as communicated by a memo dated June 27, 1979(at page 51 of the paper book) did not create any unambiguous independent right in favour of those employees of the said Society who were not on the roll of the said Society on the date of settlement dated October 11, 1972 to come within the quota of 5% vacancies of unskilled workers in Durgapur Steel Plant for their appointment. That was accepted to be an admitted position by all the parties to that proceeding. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the policy making body of Durgapur Steel Plant to look into the grievances of the appellants in the context of the decision as communicated under memo dated June 27, 1979.

22. On a close scrutiny of the order dated November 24, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, we find that nothing reflected from the above order to substantiate that the policy making body of respondent authority took any decision to remove the ambiguity in the executive policy under reference.

23. Noteworthy that Durgapur Steel Plant was an unit of the steel authority of India. The respondent No. 2, being the Managing Director of Durgapur Steel Plant (an unit of the Steel Authority of India), might be an indispensable personnel in discharging the administrative function of Durgapur Steel Plant but as an individual he was not properly appointed authority to deal with removal of an ambiguity in executive policy without reference to the decision making body. If such an order was passed, a writ court in course of judicial review should declare that order as a nullity on the grounds of arbitrariness and based on no evidence.

24. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the decision making process of the order dated November 24, 2003 cannot be sustained in law.

25. However, we do not find any substance in the second limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the rules of principles of natural justice requires an opportunity of hearing in this case of removing ambiguity in respect of an executive policy decision. The law has been settled in this regard in the matter of Balco Employees Union(REGD) (Supra) and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:

47. Process of disinvestment is a policy decision involving complex economic factors. The courts have consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions as it has been recognised that economic expediencies lack adjudicative disposition and unless the economic decision, based on economic expendiencies, is demonstrated to be so violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, that the courts would decline to interfere. In matters relating to economic issues, the Government has, while taking a decision, right to 'trial and error' as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority. There is no case made out by the petitioner that the decision to disinvest in BALCO is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed. Even though the workers may have interest in the manner in which the Company is conducting its business, inasmuch as its policy decision may have an impact on the workers' rights, nevertheless it is an incidence of service for an employee to accept decision of the employer which has been honestly taken an which is not contrary to lay. Even a government servant, having the protection of not only Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also of Article 311, has no absolute right to remain in service. For example, apart from cases of disciplinary action, the services of government servants can be terminated if posts are abolished. If such employee cannot make a grievance based on Part III of the Constitution or Article 311 then it cannot stand to reason that like the petitioners, non-government employees working in a company which by reason of judicial pronouncement may be regarded as a State for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution, can claim a superior or a better right than a government servant and impugn its change of status. In taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. While it is expected of a responsible employer to take all aspects into consideration including welfare of the labour before taking any policy decision that, by itself, will not entitle the employees to demand a right of hearing or consultation prior to the taking of the decision.

26. The decision of Balco Employees(REGD) (Supra) is applicable in the instant case up to the extent indicated hereinabove taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case. In the matter of Ram Prosad (supra) the issue was right of an individual workman for his representation through representative of his own choice in respect of a reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It has no manner of application in the matter of a judicial review in a writ proceeding. In the mattes of Secretary, State of Karnataka(Supra) and Official Liquidator(Supra), the right of absorption of ad-hoc, temporary employees in public employment was decided. In view of distinguishable facts and circumstances of the instant case, those decisions have no manner of application in the instant case of removing ambiguity in an executive policy.

27. We find no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 7 that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applicable in this case. Because in the case in our hand it was not the claim of the appellants that they relied upon any representation which was free from ambiguity to create any legal right in their favour and denial of expectation worked to their detriment. For the above reason the decision of Sethi Auto Service Station(supra) does not help the case of the appellants.

28. On the basis of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, the judgment and order dated June 20, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 5690(W) of 2004 is quashed and set aside. Consequent thereupon the order dated November 24, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 is also quashed and set aside. We direct the policy making body of the respondent authority to remove the ambiguity in its executive policy with regard to the right of those staff of the said Society, who were not on the roll of the said Society on the material date, to be appointed in 5% quota of unskilled worker of Durgapur Steel Plant by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two moths from the dated of communication of this order.

29. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Debi Prasad Sengupta, J.

30. I agree.