UNION OF INDIA Vs. R N AYARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute was referred to the Tribunal as to whether the retrenchment of 77 casual labourers as per the list annexed to the reference and as to whether the allotment of work allotted to the contractor is valid or not.

(2.) The Tribunal held that the retrenchment of Bharve, Jadhav and Patil is not legal and justified and so far as the remaining workers are concerned, it is legal but not justified. The management is directed by the Tribunal to reinstate Bharve, Jadhav and Patil and pay them full back wages from the date of their termination along with other consequential benefits. Further relief given by the Tribunal is that the action of the management in allotting the work to the contractor is legal but not justified. Therefore, they were directed to engage the employees mentioned in the list as per the common seniority list as and when there was availability of work. This award was challenged in a writ petition before the High court. The High Court upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award made by the Tribunal is not justified and calls for interference because the management had, as a matter of policy, allotted certain type of work to a contractor which was got (sic) done through the employees directly. The Tribunal in fact had adverted to this aspect of the matter and it was noticed that the management had revoked the settlement dated August 30, 1988 by making appropriate notice as contemplated under section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no illegality, however, in view of different circulars issued by the appellant the trend is that the work should not be given to the contractor in these circumstances, it was held that the action of the appellant to allot the work to the contractor is not justified though it cannot be said to be illegal. On that basis further relief was given to the several employees listed in the annexure to the reference.