INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Appeals are filed by the management-petitioner and by the workers-respondents, as both the parties feel aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-4-1989 in O. P. No. 8218 of 1988-C. The Writ Appeals arise under the following circumstances. The appellants in W. A. No. 640 of 1989 are workmen working as casual workers on daily wage basis under the management, namely, the Station Manager. Indian Airlines, Ernaku-lam, hereinafter called the "management" for the sake of brevity. They worked as casual workers on daily wage basis during the years 1979 to 1982. They were entitled to be taken into employment for the specific days on which their services were needed. After 1982, the management started giving similar employment to other batch of workers. Then an O. P. was filed questioning the so-called retrenchment of the petitioners. That O. P. was dismissed, and then an industrial dispute was raised by the workers and it was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey for adjudication as I. D. No. 37 of 1987. The Tribunal passed award dated 25. 3. 1988 which was published in the gazette on 16. 7. 1988. The operative portion of the award is as follows:

(2.) IN these appeals, counsel for the management contends that neither the Industrial Tribunal, nor the learned Single Judge, dealt with the legal questions that have been raised before them. They failed to see that as per the law the workmen are not persons who have been "retrenched" as defined under Section 2 (oo ). The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge failed to notice the effect of the amendment to Section 2 (op) in 1984, and blindly followed the earlier decisions. In fact Section 2 (oo) has been amended and clause (bb) has been introduced to cure the defect created by N. Sundaramony's case, 1976 (1) LLJ. 478 (SC ). Now in fact the Supreme Court has pronounced that N. Sundaramony's case does not lay down the law correctly. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Punjab Land Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court JT, 1990-II LLJ 70 has clearly indicated that the wide definition of "retrenchment" given by Krishna Iyer, J is no longer valid after the amendment of the Act in 1984. The Constitution Bench also pointed out that the decision in N. Sun-daramony's case, was rendered without following the earlier Constitution Bench decisions. Counsel for the management also contends that the learned Single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal committed a mistake in giving benefit of Section 25h to these workmen, when they do not satisfy the requirements of Section 25b which deals with ' continuous service", and Section 25f, which deals with "conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman". Unless the ingredients of Sections 25b and 25f are satisfied, one cannot claim the benefit of re-employment as a retrenched workman under Section 25h. Counsel for the management contends that the workers being purely casual employees, who are engaged every time for one day, can never seek the benefit of Section 25h, and they do not come within the meaning of "retrenchment" defined under Section 2 (oo), subsequent to the amendment in 1984.

(3.) ON behalf of the workers, Shri M. Ramachandran contends that casual workmen are also workmen, and they satisfy the definition of workman under Section 2 (s ). He claims that there is no substantial change in the law even after the amendment of Section 2 (oo ). According to him, the workers are deemed to be in employment continuously as they are willing to render services and do the work. He relies upon certain decisions in support of his argument, and then argued that in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has taken a particular view, which is inconformity with the principles of equity and welfare of the workers. In such circumstances, there is no jurisdiction for this Court to interfere with the same in appeal. Shri Ramachandran contends that the Industrial Tribunal is certainly competent to impose obligations on the management, especially in cases where the result would be to abolish contract labour system.