An employer is not obligated to absorb an employee into another project upon the closure of the project in which the employee is employed, where the employee is not an employee of the company, but rather of the project.

( 1 ) INDIAN Railway Construction Company Limited (in short the respondent company) is a government of India owned company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. All the shares of the company are held by the President and/or officers of the Central government in the name of the President of India. The respondent company concededly an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is engaged in the construction and implementation of various projects in the country and abroad pertaining to construction of roads, buildings, bridges, electrification, telecommunication, railway tracking, and construction work pertaining to airports.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in these five writ petitions were appointed at Anpara Project of the respondent company on casual/ad hoc basis on a consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs. 400 subject to the condition that they will have to undergo training for the prescribed period during which they would be entitled to an additional emoluments of Rs. 50 if posted in Delhi. Bombay or Calcutta and on satisfactory completion of the training, they would be required to pass a written and oral examination, on passing of which they would be brought in grade of Rs. 260-400. Appointment was subject also to verification of age. qualification, etc. for which the petitioners were required to produce the requisite documents while reporting. Each of the petitioners, it is not disputed, completed the training successfully and was placed in the regular pay scale as per stipulation contained in the appointment letters annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Orders giving regular pay scale were issued on different dates in the year 1984-85 as stated in para 7 of the writ petition. On implementation of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission report, each of the petitioners were granted revised scale of pay as per recommendation made by the Fourth Pay Commission. It is not disputed that the company had undertaken Anpara Super thermal Power Project, Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project, Rihand Super Thermal power project. Northern Coalfield Limited Lal Chua, Northern Coalfield Limited. Jayant and indian Oil Corporation, Jayant. It is the case of the petitioners that these projects have not yet completed and apart from the aforesaid ongoing projects, the Rihand region of the respondent company has undertaken further projects, namely, Varanasi-Shaktinagar Highway Project. Services of the petitioners came to be terminated vide retrenchment notice dated 20. 8. 1993. Validity of the retrenchment notices was the subject- matter of challenge in these writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that these were issued in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. besides being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THESE five connected writ petitions were allowed by a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge on 7. 12. 1993 in Lal Mohammad and Ors. v. Indian Railway Construction company Ltd. and Anr. , (1994) 1 UPLBEC 357. which judgment came to be set aside in five special appeals decided by a common judgment dated 24. 2. 1998. On appeal by special leave, however, the Apex Court set aside the judgment dated 24. 2. 1998 and confirmed that of the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4. 12. 1998 Lal Mohd. and Ors. v. I. R. C. Company Limited. JT 1998 (8) SC 351. The Apex Court though confirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge but set aside the final order disposing of the writ petitions and restored the writ petitions to the file and remitted them to be disposed of by a Division Bench in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court.

( 4 ) THE Apex Court held, infer alia, that establishment of the respondent company came within the purview of "factory" as defined by Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act for the purpose of applicabili