Case: Jaswant Singh and Others Etc Vs. Union of India and Others Etc

we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to the benefit of a ny of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and distinct classes.28. Before parting with the cases of these petitioners, we would like to record the assurance given by the lea rned Solicitor General on behalf of the Government of India that while retrenching the petitioners, the last come, first go rule will be applied inter se amongst the petitioners and further, that if and when any direct recruitments are made to the posts under the Bhakra Beas Management Board, preference in those appointments will be given to the petitioners, if they are retrenched.We will now proceed to deal with Writ Petitions Nos. 4505, 4536 and 4658 of 1978 in which the petitioners are all work-charged employees.29. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work.30. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employ- ed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.31. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits.32. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of last come, first go has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about 26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the work men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which took part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind all the work-charged employees.33. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974, they are not entitled to any rights apart from those flowing from the A aforesaid settlement and the Award. S

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act afford in our opinion a clear answer to the question whetherthe petitioners are employees of the Centralprovisions leave no doubt that the petitioners, though appointed under orders issued by or on behalf of the Beas Control Board or the Beas Construction Board are employees of the Central Government. Such of the petitioners as were appointed by the Beas Control Board became the employees of the Beas Construction Board by virtue of the first proviso to section 80(3) which we have extracted above. The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the year 1960 as a joint venture of the composite State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan. The Beas Control Board was established on February 10, 1961 and it is by and on behalf of that Board that some of the petitioners were appointed prior to November 1, 1966 when the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force. The Beas Control Board ceased to exist and its place was taken by the Beas Construction Board which was constituted on October 1, 1967. The remaining petitioners were appointed by or under the authority of the Beas Construction Board. The position which therefore emerges is that either by reason of the first proviso to section 80(3) under which ever y person who immediately before the constitution of the Beas Construction Board was engaged in the construction of any work relating to the Beas Project became entitled to continue to be so employed by the Beas Construction Board, or because t he appointments were made for the first time by the Beas Construction Board itself, the petitioners became the employees or were employed by the Beas Construction Board.That leads to the question whether the Beas Construction Board was a body incorporate with an independent statutory existence or B, whether it was merely a limb of the Central Government. Section 80(l), which clinches the matter, provides that notwithstanding anything complained in the Reorganisation Act or in any other law, the construction and completion of any work of the Beas Project shall be undertaken by the Central Government on and from November I, 1966. It is undoubtedly true that under the said provision, the Beas Project was t o be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan. But the direct and immediate responsibility to construct and complete works of the Beas Project was imposed by the statute on the Central Government and not on the successor States and the State of Rajasthan. Under the proviso to section 80(1), the Governments of these States are only under an obligation to provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for meeting the expenditure o n the Beas Project, including the expenses of the Beas Construction Board in behalf of the discharge of its functions under sub-section ( 1 ) . The Central Government is empowered by section 80(2) (a) to constitute the Beas Construction Board "with such members as it may deem fit" and to assign to that Board "such functions as it may consideris impossible to entertain the plea that the petitioners are entitled to any such certificate. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provides that a Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service if, (i) he has been in continuous service for mor e than three years and (ii), the appointing authority being satisfied, having regard to the quality of his work, conduct and character as to his suitability for employment in quasi-permanent capacity under the Government of India, has made a declaration to that effect. It does appear that the petitioners have been in continuous temporary service for more than three years but whether they fulfil the second condition or not is a matter to be decided by the appointing authority having regard to the various circumstances mentioned therein. No Government servant can claim entitlement to a declaration that he is in quasi-permanent service, because the question as to whether he is entitled to such a declaration does not depend upon the mere fact of his being in service for a particular number of years. We cannot therefore grant to the petitioners this particularis no warrant for this submission because, though section 80(5) requires a completed work of the Beas Project to be transferred to the Bhakra Management Board, it does not provide that persons who were employed in connection with such a work should also be transferred as employees of the Bhakra Management Board. In the very nature of things there could be no such provision because if any persons were employed for the Beas Project only, their employment would normally cease on completion of that Project. In fact, the petitioners were taken in employment on temporary posts for the purpose of completing the Beas project. On the completion of that Project or any other works for which they were employed their employment would normally come to an end, especially since the statute from which their rights are said to flow does not protect thatfirst proviso to section 79(4) speaks of persons who immediately before "the constitution" of the Bhakra Management Board were engaged in the works mentioned in sub- section (1) of section 79. The scheme of section 80 shows that the Bhakra Beas Management Board was never constituted as such. The only effect which the statute brings about by sub-section (6) of section 80 is the renaming of Bhakra Management Board as the Bhakra Beas Manage ment Board. The words "constitution of the said Board" cannot therefore be substituted by the words "the renaming of the said Board". The contemplation of section 79(4) is that only a certain class of employees should receive protection in the mat ter of continued employment. Unfortunately, the petitioners do not fall within that class since they were not employees of the Bhakra Management Board immediately before October 1, 1967 when that Board wassum up, we are of the opinion thatthe petitioners are employees of the CentralGovernment. Their conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to the benefit of a ny of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and distinctentire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employ- ed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits under the Employees State Insurancethough the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatoryrecord of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of last come, first go has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about 26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, under section 12 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they were employed on the date of the dispute orfrom the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974, they are not entitled to any rights apart from those flowing from the A aforesaid settlement and the Award.