EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CPWD Vs. GURUCHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the award dated 2nd May, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued and vide order dated 18th November, 2008 which continues to be in force, the operation of the award stayed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent workman. The record of the Industrial Adjudicator has been requisitioned. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

(3.) THE Industrial Adjudicator vide award dated 17th October, 2006 held that as per the judgment dated 19th October, 2005 of this Court in W.P.(C)7032/2005 titled PWD v. Satya Pal, persons engaged on work order basis and who had worked for 240 days had been treated as daily rated workers; that termination of such daily rated workman requires compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was thus held that the respondent workman having admittedly worked from 1st February, 1988 to 19th February, 1996, his termination was illegal. It was however held that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the respondent workman was not entitled to regularization. It was further observed that since the respondent workman in his pleadings had not insisted upon compliance of Section 25F and further since the respondent workman had averred in his claim statement that he was paid one month's salary at the time of his termination and not pleaded violation of Section 25F, the termination was in order. Accordingly the respondent workman was held not entitled to any relief.