NETAJI SUBHASH INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. DILKHUSH BAIRWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, referred to as "the petitioner" in this judgment and Shri Dilkhush Bairwa, referred to as "the respondent" herein, have filed writ petition (Civil) Nos. 2252/2003 and 2351/2005 respectively assailing the industrial award dated 6th February, 2002. As these petitions raise identical questions of law and fact, they are being taken up together for disposal. There is no material dispute to the facts which give rise to the petition and to the extent necessary, the same are noted hereafter.

(2.) The respondent-workman was admittedly appointed as a mason by a letter of appointment dated 25th February, 1991. In the letter of appointment, the workman was notified that he was appointed to this post in the pay scale of Rs. 975- 25-1150-EB-30-1540 with a starting salary of Rs. 915/- along with allowances as were admissible under the applicable rules. The letter of appointment contained Clause 1 wherein it was stated that post was temporary but the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. According to the petitioner, as the work for which the respondent was appointed could not be completed within this period, by an office order dated 9th October, 1991, the ad hoc tenure of the respondent was extended for a further period of six months w. e.f. 26th August, 1991 and thereafter again by an order dated 12th March, 1992 for a period of three months w.e.f. 26th February. 1992. In terms of the clear stipulations contained in this office order, the services of the respondent were terminated by an order dated 25th May, 1992 with immediate effect.

(3.) The respondent made a grievance of the termination of his services before the conciliation officer. The petitioner has contended that on account of the intervention of the conciliation officer, the petitioner was persuaded to make payment of Rs. 2,456/- to the workman and the petitioner had sent a cheque for this amount to the workman which he apparently accepted without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Thereafter, as the conciliation failed, by an order dated 1 st June, 1995, the following dispute was referred for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator: