MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. SHIV DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned Award of 30th Jan., 2004 directs reinstatement of respondent-workman with 25% back wages w.e.f. 10th Jan., 1991. The facts as noted in impugned Award need no reproduction. Suffice to note that Reference made to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") was as to whether action of petitioner-Management in terminating the service of respondent-workman w.e.f. 22nd Dec., 1987 was justified? After recording of evidence of petitioner's Assistant Engineer- Mr. N.L. Arora (MW-1) and respondent's evidence, it has been held by the Tribunal that although every year respondent-workman had been absent for varying periods, but petitioner-Management has not taken any action and in view of Bipartite Settlement, service of respondent-workman cannot be terminated without notice. The finding in impugned Award is that no notice of termination was issued by petitioner and so, respondent-workman deserves to be reinstated. It is noted in impugned Award that respondent-workman was working as a beldar on daily wages w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1981 with petitioner-Management as attendance was marked in the office of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short MTNL), but he was disallowed to report on duty w.e.f. 22nd Dec., 1987 and the cause of his absence from 1st Aug., 1987 upto 11th Dec., 1987 was sickness for which he was under medical treatment in Dr. Gupta Nursing Home.

(2.) The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for petitioner-MTNL is on the ground that respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days and was a seasonal worker and he had not reported for duty since 14th April, 1986. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that it is not even the case of respondent-workman that he is entitled to notice prior to termination in terms of Bipartite Settlement and therefore, no case for reinstatement of respondent-workman in service is made out. It is pointed out that impugned Award notes that false medical certificate was tendered by respondent-workman before the Tribunal and while noting this fact, the Tribunal has strangely directed reinstatement of respondent without any justification. Thus, it is submitted that impugned Award deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-workman supports the impugned Award and submits that in the year 1983, respondent-workman had worked for 12 months, which goes to show that he had worked for more than 240 days and so, notice before termination was essential and in the absence of notice before termination, reinstatement of respondent by the Tribunal is justified and so, this petition deserves dismissal.