REGISTRAR, GURU GHASIDAS Vs. SHRI NAGENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Award/Order dtd. 8/6/2016 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short 'CGIT') in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/26/14, whereby the learned Labour Court allowed the reference filed by the respondent No.1 holding that termination of workman/respondent No.1 is illegal for violation of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act 1947'), hence, directed the management to reinstate workman on same status, he was working with 50% back wages along with 9% interest per annum, if the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of notification of the award.

(2.) The facts, leading to file instant writ petition, are that, respondent No.1/workman was appointed on the post of daily wages Clerk in Jawaharlal Nehru College (JLN College), Sakti Janjgir Champa by the then Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (State University) on 13/8/1998. By virtue of Central University Act, 2009, Guru Ghasidas University has been established as Guru Ghasidas Central University w.e.f. 15/1/2009. Employment of the respondent/employee was kept continued for aforesaid Central University. On 9/6/2012, a news was published in the daily news paper 'Dainik Bhaskar' that the respondent/workman used to rectify papers by taking money. Hence, clarification was sought from him by the petitioner/University vide letter dtd. 9/6/2012. Subsequently, vide order dtd. 11/6/2012, passed by the petitioner/University, employment of the workman was discontinued with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent/workman raised industrial dispute under Sec. 2(a) of the Act 1947, before Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur hence, vide Order dtd. 24/2/2014, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi made reference to CGIT, Jabalpur under Sec. 10 of the Act 1947. Dispute under reference was that :

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner/University has pleaded that the respondent/workman was not the workman of the petitioner as the petitioner/University came into existence w.e.f. 15/1/2009. The workman has not filed any order of his appointment with the petitioner/University and he has not completed 240 days of work in the year preceding date of his disengagement. Thus, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent/workman, therefore, provision of Act 1947 is not attracted in the instant case. Referring to the ground raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondent/workman was not against any sanctioned post, and due process had not been followed in his employment as a daily wager, hence, by way of reinstatement order, the illegal appointee cannot be allowed for continuation. It is further submitted that even reference was not made on the ground that reinstatement order has been passed in violation of Sec. 25F of the Act 1947 or he has wrongly been removed from his employment. Further since the employment of the respondent/workman was no longer required in the SC/ST cell of the University, therefore, his employment was discontinued. If the respondent/workman found himself as employee of the University of the petitioner, then he should have raised his grievance under the Act 2009 by filing appeal before executive council of the University and there was arbitration provision also in the Act 2009, but without availing such remedy, he had raised industrial dispute. It is further submitted that order impugned passed by CGIT, Jabalpur is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned award may be set aside.