BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. SATYAVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/management has impugned the award dated 19th September, 2007 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court II directing reinstatement of the respondent with 25% of the back wages.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the respondent was a workman and he had worked for more than 240 days in the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Learned counsel contends since the respondent was not a regular workman, he cannot be reinstated. While ordering the reinstatement, the Tribunal has noted that compensation is payable in a case where an undertaking has become sick or which has been closed or it is in economic losses. The petitioner has neither become sick nor has been closed nor there is any evident that it is running in the economic loss.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on case of Uma Devi, however, the finding of the Tribunal that the Apex Court has not declared the provisions of I. D. Act unconstitutional and in cases of violation of Section 25 F, the workman is entitled for reinstatement cannot be faulted. While directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman, the Industrial Tribunal has not directed the petitioner to regularize the worker. The Tribunal has categorically noted that the management/petitioner is at liberty to engage the daily wager but at the time of termination of their services the provisions of Section 25 F has to be complied with and in case the provisions of Section 25 F are not complied, the petitioner is liable to reinstate the workman. The reasoning and finding of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is able to show to the contrary.