DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELECOM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the ex parte award dated 6.5.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of the Petitioner-employer terminating services of its workman Gulam Mustafa, Respondent No. 2 in this writ petition was legal and just or not. Respondent No. 2 claimed that he was appointed as Casual Labour in October 1989 and later on he was kept on muster roll and worked continuously till May 1992, however his services were terminated on 1.6.1992 without payment of any compensation as required by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. It is mentioned in the award that the employer did not appear in spite of sufficient service. (However Petitioner had filed written statement, copy of which is Annexure-II to this writ petition. In the written petition it was stated that Respondent No. 2 had not completed 240 days of work). Thereafter, on the basis of statement of the workman and the documents filed as Ex. W-1 to W-8, it was held that claim of the workman was proved. (The Labour Court did not even mention that workman had worked for 240 days). Ultimately termination was held to be illegal and it was held that workman was entitled for reinstatement. Through the interim order dated 24.7.1997 passed in this writ petition operation of the impugned award was stayed.

(3.) It was not the case of the workman that before his appointment any procedure was followed.