KALAMUDDIN M ANSARI Vs. GOVERTMEN OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellantworkman, original respondent, raised industrial dispute being Ref. (ITC) No.11/92 and it was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' for short) to the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide order dated 25.06.1992 to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, as per the Schedule attached to the reference. Said schedule reads as under: "Whether the action of management of Telecom Manager (TDM), Mehsana and others in not considering the name of the workman Shri Kalamudin for the scheme of Supreme Court for observing the casual labourers who have continuously worked for more than one year, is justified If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to -

(2.) Industrial Tribunal examined the factual scenario therein in the context of the reference, scheme applicable and found that the workman had completed 240 days in a given year and the first party i.e. Telecommunication Department, admitted that the second party had worked in 1997 for 240 days. However, while allowing the reference partly the first party was directed to reinstate the second party viz. the workman within 30 days from the date of receipt of this award and it was directed to consider name of the second party for the scheme of the Supreme Court for observing casual labourer who have continuously worked for more than one year and it was also directed to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reemployment. In case if the first party is unable to employ the second party within 30 days of the receipt of the award, for any reason, the first party was fastened with further liability to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/ in lieu of reemployment to the second party within 45 days of the receipt of the award.

(3.) The above award dated 18.10.1999 in Reference (I.T.C.) No.11/92 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad, was challenged by the Department of Telecommunication in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.291/2000 raising many fold contentions and one of the main contentions was that the impugned award was beyond the terms of the reference inasmuch as the Industrial Tribunal was not to undertake and exercise of finding the fact about working days of workman in a given year for the purpose of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Such exercise was to be carried out to ascertain the claim of the workman about his entitlement and temporary status as per the scheme, which came into force w.e.f. On 01.10.1989. Learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2011 partly allowed the petition by modifying compensation from Rs.1,25,000/ to Rs.50,000/. It was further observed that the workman would not be entitled for reinstatement or any other benefits.