DY. GENERAL MANAGER Vs. ILIAS ABDULREHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court, the appellants have challenged legality of judgment dated September 21, 2000 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8994 of 1990, by which award dated March 16, 1990 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 23/87 is set aside and the appellants are directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% of backwages.

(2.) The respondent -workman was employed as a water server and also to perform other ancillary jobs for different periods in Mehsana Project of the appellants as well as under geophysical department, chemistry section, production Sec. etc. of the appellants. Though he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service in the relevant year, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short). Therefore, he had raised a dispute regarding legality of termination of his services. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad for adjudication, where it was numbered as Reference (ITC) No. 23/87. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent at Exh. 6, to which written statement was filed by the appellants at Exh. 7. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal held that it was not established by the appellants that a contract for supply of water was entered into between the appellants and the respondent. The Tribunal further held that the respondent was a workman employed by the appellants. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the respondent had served in different projects of the appellants and as there was no functional unity, services rendered in one project cannot be treated as continuous one so as to enable the respondent -workman to have the benefit of Sec. 25 -F of the Act. In view of the said finding, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the reference by award dated March 16, 1990. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondent preferred Special Civil Application No. 8994/90. The learned Single Judge has allowed the same by judgment dated September 21, 2000 and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not employed in regular manner by the appellants and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% backwages. What was claimed was that the appellants -Corporation is a public enterprise of Government of India in a very vital field of exploring and exploiting natural oil and gas for the benefit of the nation and, therefore, as a well codified duty is cast upon it to ensure that recruitment of its employees in all rungs is carried out in accordance with the provisions of law and as per the policy and regulations laid down by the appellants -Corporation, the direction given by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. Lastly, it was argued that the respondent could not get himself selected when regular selection was made and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be entertained.