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

There are in all 542 petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 359 8, 4369, 4423, 4376 and 4391 of 1978. This group consists of Engineers, Overseers, Teachers, Sub-divisional Clerks, Clerks, Accounts Clerks, Time-keepers, Research Assistants, Store-keepers, Meter Readers, Daughtsmen, Tracers and Steno- typists. In the se five Writ Petitions orders of retrenchment were proposed to be passed against the petitioners but those orders have been stayed by this Court during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. In Writ Petition No. 565 of 1979, there are 158 petitioners amongs t whom are Shift Engineers, Line Superintendents and Sectional Officers. The 375 petitioners in the remaining three Writ Petitions Nos. 4505, 4536 and 4658 of 1978 are work-charged employees. The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions have already been retrenched. They are industrial employees and there is an Award of 1974 by which their rights have been adjudicatedexamining the petitioners contentions, it is necessary to have a broad acquaintance with the initiation and implementation of the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Construction Projects, the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 31 of 1966, and the circumstances in which a conflict has arisen betw een the competing right of petitioners on one hand, who were recruited directly and the Deputationists on the other, who belong to service cadres of certain State Governments and whose services have been lent for the purposes of the aforesaid Projects.The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the year 1960 as a joint venture of the erstwhile State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan, by mutual agreement between the two States. All decisions on policy and administr ative matters were taken by a Board known as the Beas Control Board, which was constituted by the Central Government in consultation with the two States on February 10, 1961. The Beas Control Board was presided over by the Governor of the then Punjab and its members included Ministers of the States of Punjab and Rajasthan, and senior officers of the Central Government and of the two States. The decisions of the Beas Control Board used to be implemented by the Punjab Government which was administering and executing the works on the project. Expenditure for the project was shared by the Punjab and Rajasthanthe passing of the Punjab Reorganisation Act which came into force on November 1, 1966, the new State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into being, having been formed out of the territory of the erstwhile State of Punjab. A part of the Punjab territory was also transferred to what was then the Un ion Territory of Himachal Pradesh. What remained with Punjab became the new State ofPunjab Reorganisation Act contains a separate chapter, Part VIII, on "Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects". With effect from November 1, 1966, the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas Project became the concern of the State of Rajasthan and of the successor States of the erstwhile State of Punjab, namely, the new States of Punjab and Haryana and the then Union Territory of Himachalsection 79(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the Bhakra Management Board was constituted by the Central Government for administration, management and operation of the Bhakra Nangal Project which included the Bhakra Dam, the Nangal Dam, certain irrigation headworks, power houses and sub-stations. By section 79(2), the B. M. Board consists of (a) a whole-time Chairman and two whole-time members to be appointed by the Central Government; (b) a representative each of the Governments of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan and the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh to be nominated by the respective Governments or Administrator, as the case may be; and (c) two representatives of the Central Government to be nominated by that Government. By Section 79(3), the functions of the B. M. Board include (a) the regulation of the supply of water from the Bhakra-Nangal Project to the States of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan; (b) the regulation of the supply of power to any Elec tricity Board or other authority in charge of the distribution of power; (c) the construction of such of the remaining works connected with the Right Bank Power House as the Central Government may, specify, and (d) such other functions as the Cent ral Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan, entrust to it. Sub-section (4) of section 79 gives to the B.M. Board the power to employ such staff as it may consider necessary for t he efficient discharge of its functions, subject to an important proviso to which we will refer in due course. Sub-section (5) of section 79 provides that the Governments of the successor States and of Rajasthan shall at all times provide the necessary funds to the B. M. Board to meet all expenses (including the salaries and allowances of the staff) required for the discharge of its functions and that such amounts shall be apportioned among the successor States, the State of Rajasthan and Electricity Boards of the said States in such proportion as the Central Government may, having regard to the benefits to each of the said States or Boards, specify. By sub-section (6), the B.M. Board is under the control of the Central Government and has to comply with such directions, as may from time to time be given to it by that Government. Sub-section (9) gives to the B.M. Board the power, with the previous approval of the Central Government, to make regulations for certain matters, including appointments and the regulation of the conditions of service, of the officers and other staff of the Board.Section 80(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act provides that the construction, including the completion of an y work already commenced, of the Beas Project shall on and from the 1st November, 1966 be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan : Provided that the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan, shall provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for the expenditure on the project including the expenses of the Beas Construction Board. For the discharge of its functions under sub-section (1), sub- section (2) of section 80 empowers the Central Government, in consultation with the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan, to constitute a Board to be called the Beas Construction Board. Sub-section (3) of section 80 provides that the notification constituting the B. C. Board may empower the Board to appoint such staff as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. There is an important proviso to this sub-section to which we will turn later. Sub-section (5) of section 80 provides that any component of the Beas Project in relation to which the construction has been completed after the appointed day may be transferred by the Central Government to the Bhakra Management Board constituted under sect ion 79, whereupon the provisions of that section shall apply as if it were a work included in sub-section (1) of that section. By sub-section (6), the Bhakra Management Board constituted under section 79 is to be renamed as the Bhakra Beas Mana gement Board when any of the components of the Beas Project is transferred under sub-section (5). The Beas Construction Board is to cease to exist when all the components of the Beas Project have been so transferred.Thus, Part VIII of the Punjab Reorganisation Act provides for the constitution and prescribes the functions and powers of three different Boards:(1) The Bhakra Management Board,(2) The Beas Construction Board and(3) The Bhakra Beas Management BFor brevity, these Boards, are mostly referred to in this judgment as the B.M. Board, the B.C. Board and the B.B.M. Board respectively. The B.M. Board and the B.C. Board were constituted on October 1, 1967. The B.M. Board was renamed as B.B .M. Board on May 15, 1976 when two components of the Beas Project, the Bhatinda-Sangrur Transmission Line and the Panipat Sub-Station, were transferred to the B.M. Board. Prior to reorganisation, there was only one Board in existence, called t he Beas Control Board, which was constituted on February 10, 1961.

Court's reasoning:
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.