AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Jyotindra Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.D. Nag for opposite party No. 2.
It has been informed by the Senior Advocate, Sri Jyotindra Mishra that this matter has been remitted back for reconsideration by an order of the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice on 21.9.2010. The Hon''ble Division Bench has directed that a finding be returned whether the case of the Petitioners-Appellants is similar to that of one Chhedi Lal and whether the Petitioners-Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the order in the case of Jitendra Kumar, benefit of which was given to Chhedi Lal.
The argument raised by Sri O.P. Srivastava is that Chhedi Lal was also initially working at Furshatganj. The Petitioners were working along with him. Chhedi Lal filed a writ petition before this Hon''ble Court and got an interim order. The Petitioners also filed writ petition and got the similar order. Later on the interim order granted in the case of Chhedi Lal was vacated. While the Petitioners approached the labour court. In this regard he has annexed Annexure No. 8, record of the discussion held on 25.2.1998 as contained in page 25 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the workmen are agreeable to their transfer to any other project throughout the country. He says that Chhedi Lal was given an appointment by the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi because he was a retrenched employee of Furshatganj Project and as a matter of policy declared by Sri Kapil Sibel in Lok Sabha Mr. Chhedi Lal was absorbed in Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
If this is true then the Petitioner might have a case and it will be required by this Court to see whether on the basis of his averments his case is identical to that of Chhedi Lal or not.
Argument of Senior Advocate Sri Jyotindra Mishra is that benefit of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1174/1986 was extended to Chhedi Lal because the matter relating to Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1174/1986 was related to the persons working at Delhi and since Chhedi Lal worked from 15.6.1989 to 30.4.1990 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, hence the Supreme Court granted benefit of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1174/1986. The present Petitioners never worked at Delhi and hence, there is a clear distinction between Chhedi Lal and the Petitioners.
A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Sri Jyotindra Mishra. In paragraph No. 10 of this rejoinder affidavit a statement has been made that Chhedi Lal got a job on his own in New Delhi as daily worker at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi w.e.f. 15.6.1989 to 30.4.1990. This is the bone of contention which goes to the root of the matter. In view of this paragraph No. 10 of the rejoinder affidavit holds the key to the entire problem.
Question was put to Sri K.D. Nag on what basis the averment has been made in paragraph No. 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. He was unable to answer this question. It transpires from the verification of the affidavit that from paragraphs No. 2 to 44 have been sworn by an officer on the basis of documents.
Sri K.D. Nag says that the record and officer both are in Delhi. It is difficult for him as a counsel at the moment to show that how Mr. Sunit Kumar Saran has deposed before this Court and has filed this affidavit. He says that further time may be granted to him to peruse the record and inform the court.
The court feels that it is an old matter and it is pending since 1991, it will be proper that Mr. Sunit Kumar Saran may appear before the court along with the document on the basis of which he has sworn the affidavit. He be advised to bring all the record regarding Chhedi Lal relating to this matter.
Accordingly, let Mr. Sunit Kumar Saran appear before this Court along with the record on 22.11.2010 to assist and explain the contention of the opposite parties before the court.