Point of Law - There is no embargo on the writ Court to quash a wholly inappropriate or undesirable or invalid reference order, in case no industrial dispute exists.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.H. Vashishth, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and; Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur dated 26.10.2021 whereby the said authority has acted in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.

“Whether the action of management of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam Pandey S/O Late Udai Shanker Pandey, Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f. 09.07.1989, is Legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, the respondent workman was engaged as a temporary Lower Division Clerk at the petitioner institution on 09.01.1987 for a fixed term of one year on fixed payment of Rs. 600/-per month. That engagement made against the specified project was later renewed against another project w.e.f. 09.01.1988 to 08.01.1989, against revised fixed payment of Rs. 650/-per month. Later, that engagement was extended and it lasted till 08.07.1989, against fixed payment of Rs. 1000/-per month. It is not in dispute that respondent no.4/workman did not work for any length of time, in any capacity since 09.07.1989. In that regard, the said respondent workman had first approached this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12415 of 1989 (Ghanshyam Pandey Vs. Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur & Anr.) seeking following relief:

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispense with the service of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk and pay the regular salary of Lower Division Clerk as admissible in law.”

That writ petition was filed on 04.07.1989. However, on 20.10.1989, an amendment application was filed whereby the following relief was also added by way of amendment:

“(iv) to issue a suitable writ, directions or order commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in their employment as if he has not been kept out of employment since 08.07.1989 and also to pay him full wages from 08.07.1989 to the date of his reinstatement together with continuity of service.”

4. After exchange of affidavits, the aforesaid writ petition was decided by judgement dated 05.12.1998. Therein, this Court reached the following conclusions:

(i) the appointment letter relied upon by the petitioner dated 09.01.1987 ( copy Annexure CA-1 of the counter affidavit) made it clear that it was a temporary engagement against consolidated payment of Rs. 600/-per month;

(ii) the engagement could be discontinued without notice;

(iii) the respondent workman could be transferred to any other project etc.;

(iv) the engagement was on a temporary basis for a fixed period;

(v) the respondent workman had applied for regular appointment subsequent to his aforesaid engagement against advertisement no. 3/87 dated 06.02.1987. However, he was unsuccessful;

(vi) the claim of violation of Section 25F of the Act or 6N of the U.P. Act was unfounded. The respondent workman was found to have been engaged purely on ad hoc/temporary basis for a fixed term, for project work by the research and development department, of the petitioner institution;

(vii) upon perusal of the minutes of the selection committee (with respect to the advertisement dated 06.02.1987), referred to above, the Writ Court found, the respondent workman was not entitled to any benefit, against plea of certain other junior workman (being continued in enga