BHUJANGA S/O KRISHNA SHETTY AND OTHERS Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are against the order dated 9.8.06 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 18400/02 and quashing the award dated 20.08.01 in Reference Nos. 70/91 and 71/91 by the Labour Court, Mangalore and directing the management to pay a service compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - to each of the five petitioners. W.A. No. 1548/06 is by the management and W.A. No. 1967/06 is by the workmen. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as workmen and management.

(2.) THE management recruited the workmen as Junior Assistant cum Typists (Tally Workers) on daily wages and on temporary basis in its Special Cell for Handling Imported Fertilizers which was established for extra work of imported fertilizers. The import of fertilizers having come to an end during April, 1987 and consequently, the engagement of the workmen was not renewed. Aggrieved by the non renewal, the workmen approached the conciliation officer disputing that non renewal resulted in refusal of work. On failure of conciliation, the dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court, Mangalore, for adjudication. The Labour Court, rejected the reference, which was challenged by the workmen in W.P. No. 18400/02. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the award and has directed the management to pay to each of the five workmen, Rs. 30,000/ - as compensation. The management has preferred the appeal to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and to restore the award passed by the Labour Court. The workmen have filed the appeal to set aside that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has denied the relief of reinstatement by awarding service compensation and also pray for grant of consequential reliefs.

(3.) SRI . S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel contended that, learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioners were not workmen in the employment of the appellant/management and that they were engaged on contract for specific period on temporary basis. He further contended that, the finding by learned Single Judge that, workmen worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year under employer is erroneous. He contended that workmen had worked in terms of the contract for certain period which is purely temporary in nature. He contended that, inference drawn by the learned Single Judge with regard to lack of details of the project or the appointment orders issued to workmen from time to time and that workmen had worked for 240 days is not correct and since workmen were engaged for different periods which should not be combined to say that each of them had worked for 240 days in a year. He contended that, there is no violation of Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) and the finding that, workmen had worked for a period of 240 days, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Senior Counsel contended that, learned Single Judge is not justified in directing payment of service compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - to each of the workmen as the same is illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that in view of the appeal of the management being meritorious, appeal filed by workmen Is devoid of merit.