OFFICER INCHARGE DEFENCE STANDARDIZATION CELL Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the award dated 18.12.2006 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court II (CGIT hereinafter) in ID no 117/2004 wherein the reference mentioned herein below was answered in favor of the respondent workman by directing reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. The reference made by the Central Government reads as follows:

(2.) It was the case of the respondent workman before the CGIT that he was engaged as a sweeper on 09.08.2000 with the petitioner management and that his appointment was through the Employment Exchange, Kibri Place Cantt., New Delhi. It was the respondent's case that the petitioner management was not providing him the benefits to which he was entitled under the law, and his constant demand for the same annoyed the petitioner who terminated his services on 19.05.2003 in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( Act for short). It was his claim that his juniors were continued in employment by the petitioner, and fresh hands were employed subsequent to his termination, which was done without conducting an inquiry or issuing a charge sheet. He raised the aforesaid industrial dispute as a consequence of his termination, submitting that the petitioner was guilty of violating Section 25 F,25T and 25U of the Act. He alleged that the petitioner had adopted unfair labour practice.

(3.) The petitioner management contested the aforesaid claim before the CGIT by contending that the respondent had been employed, along with three others sponsored by the employment exchange, as a casual worker pursuant to an agreement between him and the petitioner management. It was their case that the respondent was given periodical appointments between August 2000- May 2003. Under the terms and conditions he could be terminated at anytime if his services were not upto the mark. The management contended that the services of the respondent were unsatisfactory and his services were terminated on one week notice issued to him verbally. It was also the petitioner's case that the holdings of an inquiry or issuance of a charge sheet was not a prerequisite, as the respondent was a casual workman and not a permanent worker.