SATBIR SINGH Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SUPTD ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved with the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the award dated 03.02.2004 The brief facts which are not in dispute inter alia are that the petitioner was engaged as a Beldar and posted under Assistant Engineer, Meerut Central Sub Division, CPWD, Meerut under the control of respondent No.3 where he worked continuously upto 28.4.1982. As per the petitioner, he had completed 112 days in 1979, 277 days in 1980 and 257 days in 1981. The petitioner further stated that his services were terminated on 28.04.1982 without any notice and compensation as he was verbally told by the respondent that due to non-availability of post, his services were not required any more and as and when new post would be available, he would be considered for appointment on permanent basis. The petitioner further stated that he kept on approaching the office of the respondent and also made a representation dated 12.5.1983 for his re-employment on permanent basis but he was not given the employment. The petitioner further stated that on 23.2.1988, he was called for interview for the post of Beldar in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 and a letter to this effect was given by respondent No.4 to the petitioner.

(2.) He could not appear in the interview as the letter for the interview was handed over to him only on 24.2.1988. Vide letter dated 11.03.1988, the Senior Labour Officer made a request to respondent No.1 to take interview of the petitioner on any other date but the request of the Senior Labour Officer was not entertained by respondent No.1. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 14.03.1988 seeking re- employment on permanent basis and thereafter he had been constantly writing to respondent No.1 in this regard. The petitioner vide his representation dated 13.06.1995 raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against his illegal termination with effect from 28.04.1982 and on failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government made a reference on 25.12.1997 to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute on merits. The statement of claim was filed by the petitioner agitating his claim of reinstatement against his alleged illegal termination on 28.04.1982 by respondent No.1. Per contra, the respondent in the written statement seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner. The defence as taken by the respondent in the written statement is that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on purely temporary basis on muster roll in a project. The respondent has stated that on completion of the project, the services of the petitioner were not required and since no post was available after the completion of the project, therefore, there could not have been any question of reinstatement of the petitioner. The respondent also challenged the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner had raised dispute against his termination after a lapse of about 13 years. Such long delay on the part of the petitioner is itself evident of the fact that the petitioner knew very well that his employment came to an end in the project and that is the precise reason he did not seek any remedy or made any sort of complaint against respondent No.1/Management, for such a long period before any of the labour authorities, as per the contention of the respondent.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner had completed 240 days during his employment with respondent No.1 and as per his own case, he was terminated from his service on 28.04.1982. It is also not in dispute that no compensation or mandatory notice was given to the petitioner by respondent No.1 as per the mandate of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that once a workman completes 240 days in any calendar year preceding his termination then without following the procedure as envisaged under Section 25(F) of I.D. Act by the employer, the workman could not have been retrenched. He also submitted that the employment of the petitioner was not in any project but was a continuous employment and because of this reason alone, he was called for an interview which was held by respondent No.1 on 23.2.1988.