S M NILAJKAR Vs. TELECOME DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number of workers were engaged as casual labourers for the purpose of expansion of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum, Karnataka, during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The services of these workers were utilised for digging, laying cables erecting poles, drawing lines and other connected works. It appears that the services of these workmen were terminated sometime during the year 1987 and they were not engaged on work thereafter. In Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Deptt. through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India and others, (1988) 1 SCC 122, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 27-10-1987 directed the Department to formulate a scheme under which all casual labourers who had rendered more than one years continuous service could be absorbed. Pursuant to the said directions, the Department of Telecommunications formulated a scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989 " which came into force w.e.f. 1-10-1989. A list of casual labourers was drawn up for inclusion under the said scheme. On 16-1-1990, a number of workers whose names were not included for regularisation under the said scheme, raised disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore. Conciliation proceedings were initiated but they failed. Several disputes were referred for adjudication by the Labour Court in the years 1994 to 1997. The disputes which were referred were almost identically framed. In substances, the dispute was - whether the termination of the services of (name of worker) w.e.f. (a date in 1986 or 1987), Casual Mazdoor by the Management of Telecom District Manager, Belgaum is justified or not If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

(2.) A consolidated enquiry was held into all the disputes and they were disposed of by a common award dated 21-6-1999 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore. The Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate all the workmen into service, with the benefit of continuity of service and with 50% of back wages. The employer filed ten writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka which were disposed of on 16-9-1999 by a common judgment delivered by a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that the workers were not project employees as contended by the employer. The appointment was not for any particular project and hence would not be governed by sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Act for short). Of the workmen each had rendered a continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act for a period over 240 days and, therefore, their termination amounted to retrenchment which was invalid for non compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The workmen were, therefore, entitled to reinstatement. However, there was a delay of nearly 7 to 9 years in raising the disputes. The workmen had not placed any material on record to hold that there was no delay and the disputes were promptly raised. It was because of this delay that the employer was not in a position to produce the record relating to the days for which the workmen had worked inasmuch as according to the standing instructions of the Department, the registers of muster rolls were preserved for a period of 5 years only, whereafter they were eliminated. The Tribunal did not err in believing the oral evidence adduced by the workmen as to the period of their employment (i.e. for over 240 days). On account of delay in raising the dispute, the High Court held that the workmen were not entitled to any back wages. The learned single Judge directed the award to be modified to that extent and upheld the Tribunals award to the extent to which it directed reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service and consequential benefits but without back wages.

(3.) The employer filed intra court writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, which were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order dated 9-2-2000. Before the Division Bench, it was an admitted case of the parties that the workmen were employed by the Telecom Department as casual labourers in connection with a project for extension of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum. Their services were utilized for digging, laying of coaxial cables and other sundry work. The project was completed sometime in the year 1986-87. The disputes were raised after a lapse of 7 to 9 years.