WORKMEN ITPO Vs. MANAGEMENT ITPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the award dated 27th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court whereunder it was held that the retrenchment of the petitioner workmen was not illegal and therefore they were not found entitled to any relief. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner workmen have assailed the impugned award and sought directions to the respondent management for reinstating them in service as Beldars w.e.f. 19th April, 2003, with full back wages and continuity of service along with consequential benefits, and for setting aside the notice dated 12th April, 1993 by which the petitioner workmen were asked to collect their dues/amount offered as retrenchment compensation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the in January 1987, certain casual workers and regular workers of the respondent management went on an indefinite strike and thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court. Vide common judgment dated 26th September, 1989, the Supreme Court held that 243 casual workers be reinstated in accordance with the judgment and further directed the respondents therein to prepare a seniority list of the casual workers and also to formulate a Scheme of Regularization. All the petitioner workmen were working as muster roll Beldar w.e.f. 1985 with the respondent management.

(3.) During 1990-1992, 352 casual workers, both on Muster roll and Office side were regularized and those who were not regularized, were found surplus according to need-based-assessment. Vide Notice dated 12th April, 1993, the respondent management declared 111 casual employees, including the petitioners herein, as surplus and ordered that their engagement shall cease on expiry of 7 days from the date of publication of notice w.e.f. 19th April, 1993 and no wages compensation in lieu of one month notice was paid to the petitioners on the said date. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute on the grounds that the respondent management had violated the provision of Section 25 F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). On failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication as per the following terms of reference: "Whether the retrenchment of the workmen whose names appear in the Annexure "A" is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect""