Case: Industrial Paper (Assam) Ltd. Emps. Un Vs. Mgmt., Assam Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd

filed by the appellant was dismissed. Learned Single Judge held that since workmen were not employees of the AIDC, the question of giving them benefit as done by the Labour Court did not arise. The question of employer and employees (of AIDC) was not the subject matter of reference. Writ appeal was filed by appellant before the High Court. The High Court inter alia held while dismissing the writ appeal that AIDC is not the owner of the Extensible Sack Craft Paper Project of IPAL. Being a separate and independent company, the members of the appellant-union are not the employees of AIDC which could not be saddled with the responsibility of these employees. Therefore, AIDC was not liable for absorption or engagement of the employees of IPAL in any other AIDC promoted industry and to give them salaries regularly after the closure of the project. 8. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Labour Court had taken a practical and pragmatic view. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench should not have interfered with the findings recorded. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent AIDC on the other hand submitted that in view of materials placed on record, both learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion and no interference is called for. There is ample material on record to show that employment was for a specific project and on an expiry of that project the question of any claim to be appointed by IPAL much less by AIDC does not arise. According to AIDC the project was closed in 1991 whose assertion is denied by the appellant. 10. There is no claim that the members of appellant union were employees of AIDC. In the reference IPAL was not a party. It is evident from materials on record that IPAL was promoted by AIDC and was incorporated in 1974. It was not even subsidiary of AIDC. 11. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have categorically found that IPAL was a separate, independent company and the members of the appellant union are not employees of AIDC. That being so the conclusions of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that AIDC cannot be saddled with the responsibility of those employees is irreversible. 12. The Memorandum and Article of Association of both AIDC and IPAL as well as the Certificate of Incorporation of IPAL has been referred to by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It has, with reference to those come to hold that they have separate independent existence having independent Board of Directors. The Notification dated 22.2.1988 by which Board of Directors of IAPL has also been referred to for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that both the companies have independent existence. AIDC was a nodal agency of the Government of Assam and was acting only as a promotional organization for promoting IPAL at the initial stages. As is rightly pointed out by the AIDC cannot be branded as a owner of the establishment. The expression "Owner" has been defined in Section 3(f) of the Act. It reads as follows: "(f) "owner", in relation to an industrial undertaking, means the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking, and, where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent shall be deemed to be the owner of the undertaking". 13. In Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition, the expression "promoter" has been described as follows: "One who promotes, urges on, encourage, in cites, advances etc. one promoting a plan by which it is hoped to insure the success of a business, entertainment etc. venture. The person who, for themselves or others, take a preliminary steps to the finding or organization of a corporation or other venture. These person who first associate themselves together for the purpose of organizing the company, issuing its prospectus, procuring subscriptions to the stock, securing a charter etc. From an ordinary reading of the meaning of promoter, it can be well deduced that promoter can not be treated as owner." 14. In the written statement before the Labour Court, AIDC has taken specific stand in the following manner: "That when the employees were paid regular salary by IPAL Project from its own fund/account at that time no such demand was raised by the employees of IPAL. When they found that the Project is virtually closed and they are not getting salary from their own Project, they demanded that they belong to AIDC for the sake of getting salary from AIDC without doing any job for AIDC. In such situation the employees of IPAL cannot be treated as employees of AIDC. These employees were appointed/recruited against the Project against the Project as per the job specification and as per requirement and sanctioned strength of IPAL while seeking requisition from Employment Exchange the requisition was signed by General manager, Sack Kraft Paper Project as the employer. All the employees have been appointed on behalf of the IPAL Project. They are employees of IPAL governed by all rules and regulations of Industrial Papers Assam Ltd. Under these circumstances stated above the management of AIDC cannot take any responsibility for the employees of IPAL." 15. Above being the position, the judgment of the Division Bench affirming that of learned Single Judge cannot be faulted and the appeal stands dismissed. Subject to what is stated above, dismissal of the appeal shall not stand in the way of the concerned employees or recognized Unions making claim for arrears of salaries or claims to be due from IPAL. 16. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the committee has been appointed by the High Court in the matter of arrears of salary and on the question of absorption of various sick public sector undertakings. It needs no emphasis that those are the aspects about which we have not expressed any opinion. 17.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]There is no claim that the members of appellant union were employees of AIDC. In the reference IPAL was not a party. It is evident from materials on record that IPAL was promoted by AIDC and was incorporated in 1974. It was not even subsidiary of AIDC.Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have categorically found that IPAL was a separate, independent company and the members of the appellant union are not employees of AIDC. That being so the conclusions of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that AIDC cannot be saddled with the responsibility of those employees is irreversible.