G.M. TANDA THERMAL POWER PROJECT v. JAI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 46

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

G.M. TANDA THERMAL POWER PROJECT v. JAI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

G. M. TANDA THERMAL POWER PROJECT v. I JAi PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. OCTOBER 11, 2007 (S. B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ] Labour Laws-Appointment-On contractual basis-Against -rnon-existingpost By LandAcquisition Officer-For looking after land acquisition proceedings pertaining to land acquiredfor a Company- Salary to the employee paid by the Company-Termination ofthe employee-Industrial dispute alleging violation ofprovision ofUP. Industrial Disputes Act-Labour Court directing reinstatement on the ground that there existed relationship ofemployer and employee between the Company and the employee-High Court not interfereing with the matter-On appeal, held: Services of the employee were required by the LandAcquisition Officer and not the Company--Hence there did not exist relationship ofemployer and employee between the employee and the Company--Order ofreinstatement was wrong in >--...

view ofappointment against a non-existing post and in view ofthe fact that appointment was on contractual basis-High Court should have determined the disputed question ofrelationship ofemployer and employee, in presence of all the interested parties ie. also Land Acquisition Officer-Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226-Judicial review- Labour matter-Interference with disputed question offact- Permissibilit)l-:Held: When existence ofthe relationship ofemployer y and employee is disputed, inte1ference is permissible. State acquired land for the appellant-Company. Acquiring Authority engaged first respondent as a daily wager for a temporary period to look after the pending acquisition cases. The expenses threreofwere brone by the appellant. After expiry ofthe period, his +services were terminated. Respondent raised industrial dispute ~ ! I G. M. TANDATHERMALPOWERPROJECTv. JAi 47 PRAKASHSRIVASTAVA ~ challenging his termination.

Labour Court held that there existed a relationship ofemployer and employee between the appellant and first respondent; that the respondent was entitled to notice pay and retrenchment compensation having worked for more than 240 days. He was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Writ Petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court on the ground that it could not determine disputed question offact in exercise ofits jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950. Intra-Court appeal was also dismissed by Division Bench ofHigh Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Lands are acquired in terms ofthe provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act. It is for the authorities concerned to conduct the cases relating to acquisition ofland in the courts oflaw. Although the appellant was providing for the funds for meeting the expenditure in relation to payment ofwages etc.

to the first respondent herein, evidently, the relationship between an employer and employee did not come into being between the appellant and the first respondent. -"' The offerofappointment was issued by the Special Land Acquisition -. Officer. First respondent was working under his supervision and control. His services were being taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a particular purpose, namely, looking after the land acquisition cases. When the purpose for which the first respondent was appointed ceased to exist, his services were terminated. Ifthere did not exist any relationship ofemployer and employee, the question ofthe appellant's fulfilling the obligations required in terms ofthe UP Industrial Disputes Act, namely, payment ~ ofretrenchment compensation or one month's pay in lieu ofnotice did not and could not arise.

Ifthe first respondent was a workman working under the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the question of compliance ofthe said provisions by the said authority would also not arise. [Para 12] (51-D-G) ~ 2. The High Court, committed a serious error in refusing to interfere in the matter. When existence of the relationship of employer and employee is disputed, the same was required to be determined in presence ofall the parties who are interested in the subject matter ofreference. The Special Land AcquisitionOfficer was ilota'party·to the reference. Labour Court, neither went into the question as-regards the nature ofduties requiredto be performed by the 'first respondent and also other relevant factors;namely, who had 'issued 'the offer of appointment; ·who used to supervise and control the workofthe respondent; orwho was the authority to grant leave and take disciplinary action etc. The said questions were relevant:[Para 12]'[51-H; 52-A-B) Workmerz o/Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd v.

State o/TamilNadu and Ors. , [2004) 3SCC 514, referred to. 3. The'High Court, furthermore, committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that a direction for reinstatement cannot be issued when there does not exist any post. Requirement of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. to have the services ofsome employees was for a short period. No such'post was created by the·competent authority. The services of the first respondent were necessary·for looking after. the land acquisition ).. cases of the petitioner. Even in a case where the·workman is ;-_ appointed on contractual basis, the industrial court would ordinarily not direct for reinstatement. Subject to statutory interdict, the agreement between the parties in this behalf must be given-due weight. [Para 13) [52-C~F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppealNos. 4809- 10 of2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 13. 02.

2004 ofthe High 1 Court ofJudicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 76 of 1998. ·Ranjit Saxena, Anita Pandey and Vishnu Shanna for the Appellant. S. Wasim A. Kadri, Shalini Kumar, G. V. Rao, Kamlendra Mishra } and Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 'i PRAKASHSRIVASTAVA[SINHA,J. ] S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired land for the appellant company. Various land acquisition proceedings therefor were initiated. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, the acquiring authority, expressed its intention to engage some daily wagers to look after the pending acquisition cases and asked the appellant to meet the said expenses or depute one of its stafffor the said purpose. Appellant agreed to the proposal ofthe ,. ,.. Special Land Acquisition Officer that a person on daily wages may be appointed on an ad hoc basis.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, engaged three persons on daily wages. Their wages were paid from the fund provided for by the appellant. Appointments ofthe said employees were for a temporary period and so long as their services were necessary for the purpose oflooking after the land acquisition cases, services ofthe said employees were necessary for the period 1. 5. 1981 to 6. 3. 1982. 3. The services ofthe respondent having been tenninated with effect from 6. 3. 1982, an industrial dispute was raised. The State of Uttar Pradesh referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding -""' Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow: "Whether the termination/removal ofShri Jai Prakash Srivastava, Case-Clerk, son of Shri Gomti Prasad Srivastava, from services by the Management w. e. f 6. 3. 1982, is just and legal? Ifnot, then to what benefit/reliefthe workman is entitled entitled? " 4.

Whereas the contention of the first respondent was that there existed a relationship of employer and employee by and between the appellant and himself; the contention raised on the part ofthe petitioner was that there did not exist any such relationship. The validity of the reference made by the State was also questioned. 5. In its award dated 30. 9. 1996, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UP, Lucknow, in Award Dispute No. 28 of 1985 recorded that . J the first respondent was appointed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for conducting pairvi on behalf of the project in the cases of land acquisition.

The learned Labour Court, however, was ofthe opinion that as the salary of the first respondent was made available to the Land Acquisition Officer from the funds provided for by the appellant, a relationship ofemployer and employee came into being, holding : "From the documents available on record, it is very well proved that although the appointment ofthe appliCant-workman Shri Jai Prakash was not made on the basis ofany appointment letter issued independently by the Chief Project Manager of Tanda Thermal Power Project, but was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on daily wages on the basis ofthe approval given by the Chief Project Manager on the request/proposal made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The Management had also approved extension ofthe above appointment from time to time and also came to a decision for not continuing the services ofthe applicant-workman and the Chief Project Manager had duly informed the Special Land Acquisition Officer for discontinuing the services ofthe applicant-workman. Finally the services of the applicant-workman were terminated. It is also proved from the evidence that the applicant-workman was doing the work ofpairvi in the cases relating to the Tanda Thermal Power Project and,the payment of his salaries was also made from the funds made available by Management. In the circumstances, it is proved that the appointment ofthe applicant-workman was made on the basis ofapproval given by Management. " 6. Opining that the first respondent worked for more than 240 days during the aforementioned period and as no notice pay as also p retrenchment compensation had been paid to the workman, he was directed to be reinstated with back wages. 7.

The writ petition filed by the appellant thereagainst before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 222 ofl998, was dismissed on the premise that the disputed question of fact could not be determined by the High Court in exercise ofits jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 8. The Division Bench ofthe High Court on an intra court appeal preferred by the appellant refused to interfere therewith stating that the Special Appeal was not maintainable. PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA [SINHA, J. ] '{ 9. Appellant is, thus, before us. 10. Mr.

Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner, would submit that the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that there did not exist any relationship ofemployer and employee by and between the petitioner and the first respondent; appointment ofthe first respondent having been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 11. Our attention has not been drawn to any statute or statutory rules in terms whereofsuch an appointment could be made by a revenue authority. It was, therefore, only an ad hoc employment. 12. Lands are acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is for the authorities concerned to conduct the cases relating to acquisition ofland in the courts oflaw. Although the appellant was providing for the funds for meeting the expenditure in relation to payment of wages etc. to the first respondent herein, evidently, the relationship between an employer a.

11d employee did not come into being between the appellant and the first respondent. It did not require the services ofthe appellant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did. The offer ofappointment was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. First respondent was working under his supervision and control. His services were being taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a particular purpose, namely, looking after the land acquisition cases. When the purpose for which the first respondent was appointed ceased to exist, his services were terminated. If there did not exist any relationship ofemployer and employee, the question ofthe appellant's fulfilling the obligations required in terms ofthe UP Industrial Disputes Act, namely, payment ofretrenchment compensation or one month's pay in lieu ofnotice did not and could not arise.

Ifthe first respondent was a workman working under the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the question ofcompliance ofthe said provisions by the said authority ~ would also not arise. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, committed a serious error in refusing to interfere in the matter. When existence ofthe relationship ofemployer and employee is disputed, the san1e was required to be determined in presence ofall the parties who \ r \ are interested in the subject matter of reference. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was not a party to the reference. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UP, Lucknow neither went into the question as regards the nature of duties required to be performed by the first respondent and also other relevant factors, namely, who had issued the offer ofappointment; who used to supervise and control the work ofthe respondent; or who was the authority to grant leave and take disciplinary action etc. The said questions were relevant.

{See Workmen ofNilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , [2004] 3 sec 514]}. 13. The High Court, furthermore, committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that a direction for reinstatement cannot be issued when there does not exist any post. Requirement ofthe Special Land Acquisition Officer to have the services ofsome employees was for a short period. No such post was created by the competent authority. The services ofthe first respondent were necessary for looking after the land acquisition cases ofthe petitioner. Even in a case where the workman is appointed on contractual basis, the industrial court would ordinarily not direct for reinstatement. Subject to statutory interdict, the agreement between the pdlties in this behalfmust be given due weight 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed.

As nobody has appeared on behalf ofthe first respondent, there shall be no order as to costs. K. K. T. Appeal allowed.