JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-workmen challenge the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi passed in adjudication case Nos. 320, 321, 322, 323, 325 and 329 of 1988, dated 12.4.1996, Annexure-V to the writ petition. The following dispute has been referred to by the State Government before the Labour Court for adjudication.
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed jke xjhc iq= Jh lqeu in [kyklh dh fnuk¡d 21-4-1986 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] rFkk fnukad 22-5-1986 ls N¡Vuh fd;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
2. The Labour Court has consolidated all the cases, out of which the present petitioners filed the present writ petition, on the ground that the facts and pleadings of the parties are common and therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. The facts and pleadings of the adjudication case No. 322 of 1988 have been taken to be as leading case with the consent of the parties.
3. According to the case set up by the petitioners-workmen, they were employees of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., and U.P. State Bridge Corporation undertakes different projects for construction of the bridge in the State, counter and also in the foreign country. It is also stated by the workmen concerned in their pleadings that in different units, the employer have engaged about twenty five thousand workmen and the conditions of all the workmen have been regulated by the Standing Orders, which provide the transfer of employee from one unit to another unit according to the contingency of the employment. The workmen in the leading case, has stated that he was appointed on 1.10.1979 with the respondent-employer in its Bijnor unit and from there he was transferred to Allahabad unit in the month of June, 1983 and from Allahabad unit, he has been transferred to Faizabad unit in July, 1985. It is further stated that similarly all the petitioners were appointed and transferred from one unit to another unit. The workmen further stated that the aforesaid workmen were appointed on the post of Khalasi and that the nature of the work of the workmen was of permanent in nature, but they were not declared permanent. It is further stated by the workmen that on 21.4.1986, they are forcibly stopped from working and when they have agitated to this action of the employer; the Police Force was used to deter them from joining from duties. The Assistant Engineer concerned on 22.4.1986 got a notice published that the services of all these employees would stand terminated with effect from 22.5.1986. At that time all these workmen were working at Barabanki unit of the employer, but their services were terminated, even though the work was going on at Barabanki unit. It is further stated that while terminating the services of the workmen concerned, the employer have not followed the principles of last come first go and have also not complied with the statutory provision. The Assistant Engineer, who had issued the notice, was not a competent authority and since the establishment of the employer is covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act), hereinafter referred to as the Act', the employer have not complied with the provision of Section 25F of the Act, as they have not obtained prior permission of the State Government before resorting to the retrenchment and the notice period as provided is 90 days, whereas they have given notice of only 30 days. Thus, the action of the respondent- employer was contrary to law; the workmen, therefore, are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages.
4. The respondent-employer in their pleadings have stated that the employer U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. were granted contract for constructing a bridge over river Gomti and these workmen were appointed admittedly on daily wage basis on 1.7.1986 and the work of the said bridge was completed in November, 1986 and it was handed over to Public Works Department also. The workmen, who were appointed in the aforesaid bridge construction, have, therefore, become surplus and since the unit was closed down as the work for which the unit was established was over, therefore, all the workmen were given notice dated 22.4.1986 informing them that as a result of the closure, their services shall be terminated after one month from the date of the aforesaid notice i.e., 22.4.1986 and the said notice was pasted on the notice board. The employer have further stated in their pleadings that individual notices were tried "to be served on the workmen, but the refused to take the same and the workmen along with few others have started rioting that the notice was pasted on the notice ;board as a result thereof the employer have no option but to call the Police to control those rioting. It is further stated that after 22.4.1986 no workmen, including the present petitioners came on work. Thereafter this notice was also published in the daily news- paper Swatantra Bharat, wherein it has been categorically stated that whatever the legal due as a consequence of the closure/retrenchment is due, the workmen concerned can collect the same from the office of the employer. Inspite of that, petitioners have not turned up to collect their dues and have not accepted the notice also, but all other employees have collected their dues. The workmen case that they have been transferred from Allahabad unit to Faizabad unit was not accepted by the Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that a reliance has been placed by the workman of a letter dated 25.6.1985 issued from Allahabad unit to Faizabad unit, wherein it has been stated that these twenty workmen are being sent as still, and suttering employees and that their payments have been cleared off up to 30.6.1985. Before the Labour Court, the representative of the workmen-petitioners have stated that a perusal of this letter clearly demonstrates that these workmen have been transferred from Allahabad unit to Faizabad unit. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record have recorded a finding that in his opinion this letter does not amount to transfer order. On the contrary, it is clear that the Manager of Faizabad unit has asked for certain experienced Khalasi and as consequence of that since work of Allahabad unit was over, these workmen were sent for clearing their dues at Allahabad. In this view of the matter, since each unit of the employer is a separate and independent unit, the said letter cannot be read as an order of transfer. Therefore, Labour Court refused to accept the case set up by the petitioner-workmen. So far as the compliance of the provisions of closure/retrenchment compensation, the workmen's representative has relied upon a decision reported in 1985 (1) L.L.N. 940. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment, according to the Labour Court, clearly demonstrates that information of termination order that the workman concerned can collect their dues from the office is sufficient compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). The further argument advanced on behalf of the workmen that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that in view of law laid down in the case reported in (1994) 1 UPLBEC 357 "that the establishment employed more than 100 workmen and that the period of notice contemplated three months and not one month as has been done by the employer in the present case." The Assistant Engineer, who has been examined on behalf of the employer, has stated that approximately 100 employees were working in the unit and further the notice has been produced and the Labour Court after perusing the notice have come to the conclusion that a perusal of the notice clearly demonstrates that it is not a case of retrenchment, but it is case of closure and in the case of closure only one month notice is required and not that of three months as has been stated by the workmen. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the same arguments before this Court, which were advanced before the labour. In view of the fact, that the Labour Court has dealt with each and every workmen, as no complaint has been made that any of the argument advanced has not been considered and learned Counsel for the petitioners having failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court suffer from the manifest error of law, or is perverse. This Court refused to interfere with the award of the Labour Court impugned in the present writ petition.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.