JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of common award dated 1st October, 2002, whereby the Labour Court answered the reference partly in favor of the petitioners and partly in favor of the respondents.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent/workmen had been awarded contract of IGI Airport to do civil work. The petitioners and other workmen were employed as daily wagers on this project. The management gave retrenchment notices to different workmen on 19.10.85, 21.11.85, 23.11.85 and 27.11.85, offering them one month’s pay and the retrenchment compensation as per rules. These notices, however, were later on revoked and the management issued fresh notices under Sections 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short ‘the Act’) on 5.2.1986 on the closure of the project/establishment and the workmen were retrenched in accordance with the provisions of Section 25FFF of the Act with effect from 5.2.1986 and the compensation in accordance with Section 25FFF(2) of the Act was sent to them. However, the workmen refused to receive retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and raised a dispute about illegal termination of their services which was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:
Whether the services of the workmen as per Annexure ‘A’ have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. Before the Labour Court 24 employees filed a common claim statement. The employees took the stand that the respondent was having 14 branches and it was employing definitely more than 100 workmen on an average working day for the preceding last 12 months all over India. They contended that Chapter 5(B) of the Act was applicable to the management and since the claimants were in service for an year, they could not have been retrenched on the ground of closure. The management had not sought any permission of closure from the appropriate Government. The closure was not genuine and bona fide. The work at IGI Airport was actually completed on 9.9.1986 and not on 5.2.1986. The notice dated 5.2.1986 was, therefore, bad. The claimant also pleaded that as per earlier practice, the management used to transfer workmen from one site to other site since the projects of the management were going on at different places. The management with ulterior motives, to get rid of the workmen, had taken the plea of closure. The workmen claimed reinstatement with full back wages.
4. The management took the stand that the petitioners were muster roll employees who were appointed at work site for the project. Their services had to be terminated because of the closure of the project and provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not applicable. The closure of establishment was covered under provisions of Section 25FFF of the Act. Notices of retrenchment were issued to the workmen because the project was completed in January, 1988 and no work was there, however, as abundant caution, notices under Section 25FFF of the Act were issued since the project had come to an end. Subsequent to January, 1986 only some minor repair work was going on for which entire work force was not needed. The project cannot be considered to have continued up to 9.9.1986. The workers who were required for repair work were retained up to 9.9.86 and their services were terminated on 9.9.1986. The management was not supposed to take permission from any Government because the nature of work being executed by the management was such that the establishment automatically got closed on completion of work.
5. Some of the workmen namely Sh. Sohan Lal, Naar Singh, S.K. Sharma and Abdul Gaffar had not filed their statements of claim while the workman Ranbir Singh had not signed the statement of claim. None appeared for any of the above workmen who had neither signed the claim or not filed the claim and the Court dismissed the claim of those workmen. However, in respect of other workmen, the Labour Court came to conclusion that no permission for closure was required by the respondent to be taken from the Government as it had not been proved by the petitioners that 100 or more workmen were working in the establishment during preceding 12 months. The provisions of Section 25N and 25O of the Act were not applicable. These provisions would have been applicable only if not less than 100 employees were working on an average per working day for preceding 12 months. The provisions of Section 25N and 25O of the Act were not applicable in case of seasonal work or project work. The Labour Court also observed that the provisions of Section 25F were not applicable in case of the respondent. The question of reinstatement of the petitioners with the management did not arise since the respondent management had closed down due to the project coming to an end. Since the work of the management had not completed within two years, in terms of Section 25FFF(2) of the Act, the management was liable to pay compensation as provided under Section 25FFF(2) of the Act to the workmen on closure of the project. The Court observed that the work of project continued up to 9.9.1986 and the claimant’s plea of non closure of the management beyond 9.9.86 was not tenable.
6. The Labour Court awarded full salary to the workmen up to 9.9.86 apart from the compensation under Section 25FFF(2) of the Act.
7. The workmen have challenged the award stating that they were entitled to be reinstated and the closure under Section 25FFF(2) of the Act, as observed by the Labour Court, was not a valid closure. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent management was having several projects and closure of one project should not be considered as closure of establishment. The labour force working at one project could be shifted to other project and the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court was wrong.
8. I consider that there is a basic fallacy in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is a civil construction company and it is the case of the petitioner itself that the respondent was running several projects simultaneously. It is obvious that the respondent had to employ separate workforce for each project. If one project comes to an end, the labour force of that project cannot be sent to any other project where the labour force is already working and the labour force of all the projects cannot be retained throughout. Thus each project has to be considered as a separate unit and if civil construction project comes to an end, the management cannot be forced to keep the workforce with it and pay them the salary, hoping that the management will get new construction project sometime in future. Moreover, the projects which are taken up by the management are not concentrated at one area and most of these projects are spread all over India and the local workforce is always a preferred option before the management. I consider that the management had no option before it when the project comes to an end except to resort to Section 25FFF(2) of the Act, which reads as under:
Where any undertaking set-up for construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work is closed down on account of the completion of the work within two years from the date on which the undertaking had been set up, no workman employed therein shall be entitled to any compensation under Clause (b) of Section 25F, but if the construction work is not so completed within two years, he shall be entitled to notice and compensation under that section for every [completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months].
9. The Labour Court came to conclusion that the management got closed down on 9.9.1986. In fact, this was the plea of the workmen themselves that the management’s project got closed down on 9.9.1986. The Labour Court, without going into the controversy whether the project got closed on 5.2.1986 or 9.9.1986, gave a decision in favor of the workman, accepting the plea of the workman. I consider that the workman could have asked nothing more.
10. In a civil construction work, different category of labourers are required for different stages of construction and their services can be dispensed with as and when the nature of work, for which the labour was employed is over. The labour which is employed for digging earth for basement and foundation, has to be disengaged once the digging work is over. Similarly, the labour which is engaged is for doing masonary work, RCC work, pillars etc has to be disengaged when that work is over. Once the basic structure of masonary work and roofs and pillars is over, the entire workforce, engaged in masonary work and pillar work and RCC work can be disengaged with and the workforce which is required for laying water pipes, electricity connection and providing other infrastructure in the building project, only remains there. Management in such cases cannot be forced to keep in employment entire workforce, whether there is work or not. However, the decision of the Labour Court that the project came to an end on 9.9.1986 has not been challenged by the management. This issue is not before the Court. In any case, I find no force in the arguments of the petitioners.
11. In view of my above discussion, I find no perversity in the award. The writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.