Item No. 21 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR SWP No.1234/2013 MUZAFFAR MAJEED DAR & ANR. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Shagufta Maqbool & Mr. Faizan, Advocates-for R1 & R4. Mr. Shivnath Kumar, Advocate, with Ms. Deepti Gupta, Advocate-for R2&R3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 20.02.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present writ petition, have challenged orders dated 07.05.2013, whereby their representation has been considered in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation (SWP No.370/2013) and thereafter the same has been rejected. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon respondents to provide proper pay scale attached to the post of Telephone Technician in their favour and also to confirm their services with release of consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Telephone Technician by respondents No.2 and 3 vide office order dated 01.01.2003 and as per the said order, the said petitioner was to remain on 2 probation for some time and was to be confirmed subsequently. Petitioner No.1 was deployed at Air Force Station, Awantipora, for maintenance and service of underground cables in his capacity as Telephone Technician. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Telephone Technician by respondents No.3 and 4 vide office order dated 30.07.2004 with similar conditions of probation and confirmation. The said petitioner was also deployed at Air Force Station, Awantipora, for maintenance and service of underground cables. 3. It has been contended that the petitioners continued to discharge their duties and responsibilities to the entire satisfaction of their employer but in December, 2012, they came to know that annual maintenance contract of respondents No.2 and 3 with Air Force Authority is expiring in January, 2013. It has been submitted that the petitioners have not been paid their salary after January, 2013, nor they have received any instructions from respondents No.2 and 3. 4. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to regular pay scales attached to the post of Telephone Technician from the date of their engagement and their services are also required to be confirmed with effect from 21.12.2005/01.08.2006 upon completion of two years of service. It has been submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No.370/2013 and the same was decided by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2013 directing the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners in the light of the averments made in the writ petition. It is further contended 3 that respondents No.2 and 3 accorded consideration to the claim of the petitioners but rejected the same in terms of impugned orders dated 07.05.2013. 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that respondents No.2 and 3 have taken a contradictory stand, inasmuch as on one hand they have claimed that they had no contract with the petitioners but on the other they have taken a stand that their contract had expired on 12.01.2013. It has been contended that the engagement orders of petitioners were issued by respondents No.2 and 3 and not by M/S Escorts Communication Ltd., as is being projected by the said respondents. It has been further contended that the claim of the respondents that the engagement of the petitioners was contractual in nature and, as such, they have no right to claim regularization/ continuation, is baseless. It has also been contended that the claim of respondents No.2 and 3 that the services of the petitioners had automatically come to an end with the termination of the contract, is not tenable and that the action of the said respondents is violative of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been contended that respondents No.2 and 3 were bound to issue regular appointment orders in favour of the petitioner but instead of doing so, they offered them a job at Delhi carrying consolidated salary of Rs.7000/ per month, which amounts to exploitation of the petitioners. 6. Respondents No.2 and 3, in their reply to the writ petition, have stated that they had a tie up with M/S Escorts Communication Ltd and as 4 per the agreement between them and M/S Escorts Communication Ltd, respondents No.2 and 3 had to get 3.5% of the entire revenue towards consolidated profits from M/S Escorts Communication Ltd and the entire task regarding supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of underground cabling system was to be performed by M/S Escorts Communication Ltd. Therefore, if at all the petitioners have any claim, the same is to be considered by M/S Escorts Communication Ltd. from whom they were getting the salary. It has been further contended that pursuant to participation in the bidding process, respondents No.2 and 3 were awarded the contract by respondent No.4 for the aforesaid work and thereafter the said respondents had entered into an agreement with M/S Escorts Communication Ltd. on 15th April, 1998. 7. It has been further submitted that annual maintenance contract between respondents No.2 and 3 on one side and respondent No.4 on other was renewed from 01.12.2010 to 30.11.2011 and thereafter it was renewed upto 11.01.2013. According to respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioners were directly working under respondents No.2 and 3 purely on contractual basis from 01.12.2010 to 11.01.2013 and prior to that, they were engaged by M/S Escorts Communication Ltd. Thus, according to respondents No.2 and 3, after the termination of AMC on 11.01.2013, the said respondents could not have continued the services of the petitioners as they were engaged purely on contractual basis. It has been further submitted that after they received representation of the petitioners on 20.12.2012, the same was forwarded to Delhi Government and the petitioners were offered 5 jobs commensurate to their skills but they refused to accept the same. The crux of the defence of respondents No.2 and 3 is that the petitioners were employed as contractual employees, as such, they had no right to continue after termination of the contract. 8. Respondent No.4, Air Force Station, Awantipora, Pulwama, in its reply, has submitted that it had entered into a contract with M/S ICSIL (respondents No.2 and 3) for service for the purpose of annual maintenance of underground cable system at Air Force Station, Awantipora, and as per the terms of the contract, respondents No.2 and 3 were to provide trained manpower and lodging support for maintenance of underground cables at base. It has been submitted that under the aforesaid contract, the petitioners were placed at the base by respondents No.2 and 3 at their cost to work as Telephone Technicians with effect from 24th January, 2003. It has been further submitted that annual maintenance contract between Indian Air Force and M/S ICSIL expired in January, 2013 and consequently, the said company discontinued the services. According to respondent No.4, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners against them. 9. Vide order dated 13.04.2015, M/S Escorts Communication Ltd was arrayed as party/respondent No.5 to the main writ petition but the said respondent despite service did not choose to appear and, accordingly, it was set exparte. 6 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 11. The claim of the petitioners is that they were engaged by respondents No.2 and 3 as Telephone Technicians on probation basis and that they were entitled to be confirmed with payment of regular salary. On the other hand, respondents No.2 and 3 claim that the petitioners were initially engaged by M/S Escorts Communication Ltd., respondent No.5, with whom respondents No.2 and 3 had a tie up for providing the service of commissioning and maintenance of underground cables at Air Force Station, Awantipora, in terms of agreement dated 15th April, 1998. Though respondents No.2 and 3 have admitted that at least from 1st December, 2010 to 11.01.2013, the petitioners were directly working under the said respondents, yet their contention is that the petitioners were working purely on contractual basis. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the petitioners were permanent employees of respondents No.2 and 3 or that they were working only on contractual basis. 12. The petitioners have not placed on record their appointment letters to support their contention that their appointment by respondents No.2 and 3 was not contractual in nature but it was of permanent nature. What they have placed on record is an inter se communication between M/S Escorts Communication Ltd and Station Commander, Air Force Station, Awantipora. Merely because in the said letter it is mentioned that the services of the petitioners shall be on probation for some time to be confirmed subsequently does not lead to the conclusion that their 7 engagement was of permanent nature. The entire correspondence placed on record by the petitioners as also relied upon by respondents No.2 and 3 leaves no scope for taking a view that engagement of the petitioners was of permanent nature. Respondents No.2 and 3 were given a contract by respondent No.4 for maintenance of underground cables which was for a specified period. The annual maintenance contract between respondents No.2 and 3 on one side and respondent No.4 on the other side came to an end in January, 2013. It appears that the engagement of the petitioners was co-terminus with the contract between respondents No.2 and 3 on one side and respondent No.4 on other. Once the said agreement came to an end in January, 2013, the petitioners cannot claim to continue in service of respondents No.2 and 3. 13. A contractual employee, whose services come to an end with the expiry of contract, cannot claim the benefit of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, admittedly, after the service contract of the petitioners with respondents No.2 and 3 came to an end, they were offered jobs at Delhi which they refused to take up. It is to be noted that ICSIL is an undertaking of Delhi Government based in Delhi and it was only for specific assignment of maintenance contract with respondent No.4, that they had set up their office in Kashmir and engaged employees over here. Once their contract came to an end in Kashmir, they cannot be expected to continue the services of the employees whom they had engaged in Kashmir for a specific project and to pay wages to them without extracting any work from them. Once respondents No.2 and 3 wound up their 8 assignment in Kashmir and shifted back to Delhi, the only option for the petitioners was to take up the job offered to them by respondents No.2 and 3, which, obviously, was available at Delhi only. The petitioners, however, refused to join the job and for this, respondents No.2 and 3 cannot be held responsible. Thus, even if the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act are invoked in favour of the petitioners, respondents No.2 and 3, by offering job to the petitioners at Delhi, have adhered to the requirements of the said provision. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any shall stand vacated. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 20.02.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.02.2025 09:48