SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and S.N.Variava, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5395 of 1998. D/d. 08.11.2000.

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

R.N. Ayare - Respondent

Retrenchment - Legality - In view of different circulars issued by the appellant the trend is that the work should not be given to the Contractor - In these circumstances it was held that the action of the appellant of the appellant to allot the work to the contractor is not justified though it cannot be said to be illegal - On that basis further relief was given to the several employees - Award not interfered with.

[Para ]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - A dispute was referred to the Tribunal as to whether The retrenchment of 77 casual labourers as per the list annexed to the Reference and as to whether the allotment of work allotted to the Contractor is valid or not. The Tribunal held that the retrenchment of Bharve, Jadhav and Patil is not legal and justified and so far as the Remaining workers it is legal but not justified. The Management is directed by the Tribunal to reinstate Bharve, Jadhav and Patil and pay them full back wages from the date of Their termination along with other consequential benefits. Further relief given by the Tribunal is that the action of the Management in allotting the work to the Contractor is legal But not justified. Therefore, they were directed to engage The employees mentioned in the list as per the common Seniority list as and when there is availability of work. This award was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that The award made by the Tribunal is not justified and calls for Interference because the Management had as a matter of policy allotted certain type of work to a Contractor and was not done through the employees directly. The Tribunal in fact had adverted to this aspect of the matter and it was noticed that the Management had revoked the settlement dated 30.8.88 by making appropriate notice as contemplated under Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no illegality, however, in view of different circulars issued by the appellant the trend is that the work should not be given to the Contractor. In these circumstances, it was held that the action of the appellant to allot the work to the Contractor is not justified though it cannot be said to be illegal.On that basis further relief was given to the several employees listed in annexure to the Reference.

3. So far as Bharve, Jadhav and Patil are concerned the Matter restsfully on facts, therefore, we do not think it Necessary to interfere with the award made by the Tribunal as Affirmed by the High Court. In so far as the question raised Before us that it is certainly open to the appellant to formulate its policy in awarding the work to the Contractor or get it done through employees engaged by him and not directly, it is no doubt correct when such a policy is formulated and adhered to as there can be no cause for grievance for other employees. However, as noticed by the Tribunal the stand of the appellant is inconsistent in issuing different types of circulars. The effect was that the work should not be given to the Contractor. If that is so, there is no justification in interfering with the award.

The appeal is dismissed.

.