w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Amar Kumar Kundu v/s Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd.

    C.M.W.P. Appeal No. 29614 of 1998

    Decided On, 17 May 2000

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. AGRAWAL

    For the Appearing Parties: V.R. Agrawal, Vivek Ratan, Yogesh Agarwal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

R.K. AGRAWAL, J.


(1) BY these two applications, the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28858 of 1998 and writ Petition No. 29619 of 1998 seek an interim order from this Court staying their eviction from the residential quarters during pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions. The petitioners in each of the two writ petitions have challenged the notice issued under Section ] 25-F read with Section 25-FFF (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent company.


(2) THE case of the petitioners is that they are the employees of the respondent company and are not the employees of a particular project. Further, their case is that the project in which they were working is still continuing and, therefore, the impugned notices are illegal and bad. The respondent company had provided residential quarters to the petitioners for residing at site during pendency of the project. However, after completion of the project and after the impugned notices were, issued to them, they have been asked to vacate the residential quarters. On refusing to vacate the residential quarters the respondent Company had taken recourse to proceeding under law.


(3) SRI Yogesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question as to whether the notices are valid or not and as to whether the project in which the petitioners were working, has come to an end; or is still continuing is to be examined by this Court, and therefore, in the interest of justice the petitioners should not be evicted from the residential quarters provided by the respondent company. He further submitted that if the, petitioners are evicted from the residential quarters so provided, they will not be able to pursue their matter before this court and, infact, it would result in great injustice to the petitioners, as they would not be able to pursue their case.


(4) SRI V. R. Agrawal, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent company, however, submitted that the services of the petitioners have been terminated with the issue of the impugned notices and they are no longer the employees of the respondent company. In fact, they have never been the employees of the respondent company, but were the employees of the project, which the respondent company had undertaken. Till such time it is finally decided that the project is still continuing or the petitioners are the employees of the respondent company, they cannot be permitted to retain the residential quarters provided by the respondent company at the site of the project. He further submitted that the residential quarters provided to the petitioners do not belong to the respondent company and they have only been provided by the contractee on whose behalf the respondent company had undertaken the project and after the completion of the project the respondent company is under an obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the residential quarters to the contractee. He further submitted that even if the petitioners are held to be the employees' of the respondent company, still the respondent company can ask the petitioners to vacate the residential quarters and there is justification for asking the petitioners to vacate the residential quarters. In support of his aforesaid plea, he relied upon Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and submitted that the respondent company can initiate proceedings for eviction of its erstwhile employees from the residential quarters provided by it and mere pendency of some proceedings in a Court of law will not prohibit the respondent company from maintaining such an action under Section 630 of the Companies Act. In support of the aforesaid plea he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in the case of R. Antony v. Renusagar Power Company Ltd. , reported in (1996-II-LLJ- 329) (All).


(5) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the services of the petitioners have been terminated by the impugned notices. The question as to whether the impugned notices are valid or not is yet to be decided by this Court in the present writ petition. Till such time the notices are held to be valid by this Court, the petitioners cannot be treated as an employee of the respondent company, and therefore, they are not entitled for any protection from this Court for staying their eviction. Moroever, from the particulars of the petitioners given in the writ petition, i find that the petitioners have not given their address of the residential quarters, which they have been allotted by the respondent company, but their permanent address. It can be said that the petitioners are not residing in the residential quarters allotted by the respondent company. The submission

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of Sri Yogesh Agrawal that if the petitioners are evicted from the residential quarters, they will not be able to pursue their case is wholly misconceived. (6) SRI V. R. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, very fairly stated that the eviction of the petitioners shall be in accordance with law and not otherwise. (7) IN view of what has been stated above, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for grant of interim order. The applications for stay are hereby rejected.
O R