Read Time: 07 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently answered in the negative the question as to whether a workman who had been employed for a particular project can be considered an employee of the company and given permanent status after the project is over.

Placing reliance upon the Apex Court's ruling in Lal Mohammad and Ors. vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors.(2007), the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma asserted that when a workman is employed for a particular project, the services of that employee come to an end when the project is over.

The petitioner had contended that his case was different than Lal Mohammad, however, the Court noted that there was similarity between the two and therefore, after hearing the parties and perusing the written arguments, the High Court gave its verdict against the petitioner. 

The petitioner was employed in 1984 by the Indian Railway Construction International Ltd. (IRCON) initially as a peon on a casual basis for a period of six months in Madhya Pradesh.

However, after completion of such service, the petitioner was re-employed on monthly basis with a consolidated wage of Rs. 196/- plus dearness allowance.

Thereafter, in 1985 he was attached with Anpara Project, District – Mirzapur, U.P. This was done by the order of Regional Manager IRCON – Anpara. He continued for four years in this arrangement, after which he was brought in the regular scale in 1989.

After this he was transferred to another Rihand Nagar Project in 1993 where he was re-employed on the scale of pay which was in the grade pay of Rs. 196-237/-. However, subsequently, in 1998 his services were dispensed with.

Aggrieved by this decision of the company, he raised an industrial dispute praying for reinstatement with back wages pursuant to which the Labour Court passed the order on November 23, 2020 providing an award in favor of the petitioner. Labor court's this order was challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

The petitioner had argued that he was a regular employee because he had been given a scale of the regular employee with effect from April 1984, and further in May 1986 and April 1989, he was further granted certain status, and therefore, his services could not be dispensed with.

On the contrary, the respondents' counsel had contended that merely because the petitioner had got a regular scale, it did not mean that the petitioner had been regularized. She had further submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Project and not of the Company.

Against this backdrop, the Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in Lal Mohammad wherein it was held that such a workman could not be considered an employee of the company under which various other projects ran.

In Lal Mohammad, several other workmen of the Company who were found surplus and their services were also dispensed with, had filed writ petitions before the High Court. After moving to and fro, the case ultimately reached for decision in appeal before the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court found that the petitioners were not entitled to be regularised in the services of the company as they were not employees of the company. 

However, the Apex Court had held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation and thereafter the appeals were dismissed.

Therefore, following the Supreme Court's ruling, the high court also dismissed the present writ petition noting that no interference was warranted in the Labour Court's order. 

Cause Title: Bipin v. Union of India and Ors.