INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING Vs. SOPALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that rejoinder is not necessary to be filed in the present case and the petition be heard on the existing pleadings.

(2.) With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up today for final hearing.

(3.) This writ petition filed by the Director, Ministry of I&B challenges the Award dated 25th May, 2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent No.1 had challenged in the Industrial Tribunal the termination of his services by the petitioner on 7th June, 1987. The respondent No.1 relied upon a office memorandum No.49/14/77-Estt dated 21st March, 1979 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs mandating regularization of services of a casual employee who had completed 240 days of work. He had further averred that being a temporary employee and having put in 240 days of service, in illegally terminating his service, the principle of last come first go was not followed as his juniors were retained in service. The petitioner did not appear at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore, found that `discontinuance' is nothing but a substitute for `termination' in the present case and the respondent No.1's case does not fall within clause (a) to (c) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal also found that the impugned order violated Section 25F as the respondent No.1 had averred that he had put in 240 days of eligible continuous service, after his reinstatement in conciliation proceedings in July, 1986 until the termination of his services till 6th June, 1987. This plea was not disputed in the written statement filed by the petitioner.