DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELECOM Vs. SATYENDRAPRAKASH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for following prayers:-

(2.) Learned advocate Ms. Roopal Patel appearing for the petitioner-Department submitted that the industrial tribunal has disregarded the evidence on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion dehors the evidence that the respondent-workman is entitled to the benefit by considering him to have worked for continuously period of more than 240 days. It is submitted that initially it was the burden of the respondent No. 1-workman to establish the fact that he has worked for period of more than 240 days before the date of his termination. It is submitted that the respondent-workman has rendered the services in two halves first between 1/7/1987 to 30/6/1988 and other between 17/4/1989 to 31/7/1989 for a period of 106 days and even if the evidence of the workman is considered that he has worked for 366 days in the first half, the same cannot be treated as a continuous service of 240 days prior to the date of his alleged termination from service.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate Mr. K.R. Mishra appearing for the respondent-workman has at the outset submitted that the delay cannot be attributed to the respondent-workman inasmuch as the workman had agitated the issue before the Regional Commissioner of Labour. According to the petitioner, the respondent-workman had agitated the issue before the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Ahmedabad by a communication dtd. 8/11/1995 and only thereafter, in the year 1998, it appears that the reference has been made and therefore, delay is not attributable to the respondent and therefore, there is no need for any explanation to such delay. Learned advocate for the respondent has argued that in view of the fact that the respondent-workman has served for a period of 366 days between 1/7/1987 to 30/6/1988 is a service which is sufficient to treat the case of the workman under the prevailing policy and therefore, CGIT was justified in considering the case of the respondent-workman to the extent that having completed more than 240 days, in a calendar year, the respondent-workman was entitled to the benefit of the policy by giving him a status of other casual labour or temporary status. He drew attention of this Court to the terms of reference made to the industrial tribunal where the specific issue was that for giving respondent workman statutory a temporary status on the muster role of casual workman on Coaxial Cable Project and therefore, also considering the application of the policy, certain rights had accrued in favour of the respondent-workman and by committing breach of such rights, the respondent-workman' services were brought to an end and therefore, order of reinstatement is justified.