DEPUTY CSTE CONST Vs. KSHETRAPAL SINGH KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 27th April,2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court(`CGIT' in short) in I.D.No.12/92 whereby it has held the termination of services of the respondent-workman by his employer, the petitioner herein, to be unjustified and it has been directed to re-instate him.

(2.) THE case of the respondent-workman was that he had worked with the petitioner from 12.12.1975 till 18.06.1976 and his services were terminated illegally by the petitioner- management w.e.f. 19.06.1976. THE respondent had claimed that though he had been employed by the petitioner- management as a casual labour but on completion of 120 days of continuous service he had acquired the status of a temporary employee as per the Government instructions applicable to the petitioner-management and, therefore, his services could not be terminated without notice and assigning any reasons. It was the further case of the respondent- workman that though the services of another workman one Dan Singh were also terminated alongwith him but subsequently that Dan Singh had been re-instated while he was not re-instated. Similarly another employee Bachhu Singh was also re-engaged by the petitioner-management. THE respondent-workman thus claimed violation of the provisions of Section 25-G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

(3.) AS far as the defence of the petitioner-management that the respondent-workman had himself abandoned his job is concerned, it has not been found by CGIT to have been established and it has been held in the impugned award that the petitioner-management had terminated the services of the respondent-workman illegally since there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. It was also held that two employees who were junior to the respondent herein had been re-engaged and for that reason also the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was unjustified. Consequently the CGIT directed the petitioner to re-instate him in service.