BALRAM DASS Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner workmen challenging the award dated 2.9.1998 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by which the respondent/CPWD was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the four petitioner workmen for the reason that the termination of their services by the respondent/CPWD was held to be bad for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), but it was held that since none of the petitioner workmen had completed 240 days of service in any calendar year, therefore they were not entitled to reinstatement in service. It is prayed that the said award be set aside and directions be issued to the respondent/CPWD to reinstate the petitioner workmen No.2 to 4 in service w.e.f. 22.4.1984, with full back wages and continuity of service and grant all monetary and consequential benefits to the legal representatives of the petitioner/workman No.1. (since deceased), w.e.f. 22.4.1984, up to the date of his death, i.e., 1.11.2003.

(2.) Facts of the case are that allegedly the four petitioner workmen were engaged by the respondent/CPWD on 27.5.1982, 10.4.1973, 15.4.1982 and 10.6.1972 respectively. The services of seven workmen, including the four petitioners in the present case, were terminated by the respondent/CPWD. The services of all the four petitioner workmen were terminated w.e.f. 22.2.1984. The said workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal in the following terms of reference: "Whether action of management of CPWD in stopping from work Smt. Siddhi Bai, Vijay Kumar Soni, Balram Das, Sunil, Abid Khan, Chaiman Lal, w.e.f. 15.08.1985, 20.3.1982, 12.7.1983, 22.2.1984, 22.2.1984, 22.2.1984 and 22.2.1984 respectively is justified" If not, what relief the above workmen are entitled to""

(3.) The petitioner workmen filed their statement of claim in which it was stated that all the seven workmen had completed 240 days of service as required under Section 25-B of the Act on the day preceding their termination, but the respondent/CPWD did not comply with the provisions of law and natural justice and that their services were wrongfully terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The respondent/CPWD, in its written statement claimed that while the first three workmen were never terminated from service and they had voluntarily left their jobs, the four petitioner workmen were engaged only for a short term for contingent work, on daily wages, in the Food Storage Department, and therefore their services were dispensed with when they were no more required, and that they could not be absorbed on a permanent post.