SHRI RAM LAL Vs. AIR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the award dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (herein after referred to as ,,the Tribunal) whereby industrial dispute raised by the petitioner for regularizing his services with the respondent/management has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts relevant for the disposal of present petition are as under:-

(3.) THE respondent/management opposed the same by filing written statement stating therein that the petitioner had worked as a Casual Loader with respondent/management during 1981 to 1985. Thereafter, he abandoned the work and did not perform any work. The management further stated that some of the casual workers filed petitions before the Supreme Court in the year 1987 for regularization of their services. The Honble Supreme Court directed the Central Government to refer the matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference was made and the Tribunal adjudicated upon the matter and passed an award dated 4.3.1997 holding that the regularization of the worker be done in accordance with the scheme prepared by the respondent/management. The said award was challenged vide SLP No.3609/1992. However, the award was found to be fair and reasonable and the scheme proposed by the management for regularization was upheld. The stand of the respondent/management was that the petitioner was not eligible as per the scheme prepared by the management which was approved by the CGIT vide its award dated 4.3.1997 as such the petitioner was not considered for regular appointment and not called for interview on account of the non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria. It was further stated that the petitioner had filed the claim after a lapse of 7 years and it was highly belated one. The respondent/management further took a stand that after 1986 the petitioner never approached the Air India and he had voluntarily abandoned the work. It was further their stand that as per the Scheme only those casual workers who had not worked with the respondent after 1.1.1986 were not eligible for consideration under the scheme and as the petitioner had worked till 1985 therefore he was not considered for regular appointment. It was denied that the Personnel Manager had taken any document from the respondent as was alleged by him. The respondent/management had adhered to the scheme and had regularized casual workers who were covered under the said Scheme and other employees were regularised. It was alleged that Jhaman Lal and Jai Singh were eligible as per the requirement laid down under the scheme and as such they were regularized.