9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory or not, the fact still remains and stares at the face that the Project in which they worked was closed down rendering the petitioners surplus. If the petitioners insist in the amended petition that they were 'workmen' within the meaning of term in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, then law requires only closure compensation to be paid to them. Right to reinstatement would not exist. It is also not that the posts have been abolished, rather the Project has been closed down and they cannot claim an alternative job on closure of the Project as a matter of right. Closure of an industry would not attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. See MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN., LTD. VERSUS P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Government of India, New Delhi. The Central Social Welfare Board is incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The administrative, functional and financial control of the Haryana Board lies with the Central Social Welfare Board. 3. Respondent No.1 in its reply has raised objection as to maintainability of the petition asserting that neither the Project nor the Central Board or the State unit is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The entity has not been created by a Statute or under a Statute. The HRD Ministry had decided to close down the Project and to this end had issued letter dated December 31, 2004 to the Project managers after a prior decision was taken in the meeting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices Rules as applicable to Haryana are not applicable to the petitioners. The department admits that the services of the petitioners were regularized by order but they clarify that their services were regularized for the purposes of Project alone and no right can be claimed by them when the Project itself has been closed down. The petitioners are not and nor were government employees. They have not the protection of Article 311 of Constitution of India. The prayer of the petitioners that they be absorbed in the different departments of the Government cannot be answered by the Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board. This power is vested in the State Government. It is argued that the Board is not part and parcel of State Government ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n thereof . 7. The Central Board while directing the Haryana Board to close down the Project gave specific reasons for closure, such as, duplicity of the activities and paucity of funds. It is settled proposition of law that in the eventuality of closure of Project for justified reasons, the employees working in the Project will not get any vested right to continue. Therefore, no fault can be found with the closure of the Project and consequent dispensation of the services of the employees. The appointment of the petitioners was made in the Project only. The respondent No.1 relies on M.D., UP Land Dev. Corpn. and another v. Amar Singh and others, 2003 (3) RSJ 210 to contend that when the Project comes to closing down, the employees who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the termination orders, contending that they contains stigmatic words which detracts from simpliciter closure and read as under:- 3 It has also transpired during inspection that the employees are not rendering their services an a proper and fair manner. Action has also been taken against them from time to time in this regard. 4. The proper benefit is not accruing to the people and the expenditure being incurred is wastage as balsevikas working under this project are getting salaries sitting in their homes. Moreover, it has been observed that these centres run by the Board have reduced in significance to such an extent that the Public benefit derived from the same is not commensurate with funds spent. 10. From here it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana Anr, 2008 (1) SCC(L S) 563; 3. Allahabad Bank Anr v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn., 2010(2) SCC 44; 4. State of H.P. v. Lashkari Ram, 2008(1) RSJ 70 12. Per contra, respondent No.1 relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer and another etc., 1997 (4) SLR 719. Closure of an industry would not attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and more specifically in the case of Amar Singh (Supra) on the issue of Project employees and their rights. 13. In view of the above, I find no justification in accepting this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. However a dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
