UNION OF INDIA; KALI DIN Vs. MAJID KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions except Writ Petition No.6665 (SS) of 2002, are connected with each other, but Writ Petition No.6665 (SS) of 2002 appears to have been wrongly connected with this Bunch as the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner for retiral benefits which was disposed of on 23.11.2002 with a direction to the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to payment of retiral benefits. In rest of the writ petition, the controversy involved is as to whether action of the Management of Divisional Commercial Manager (Catering), Central Railway in terminating the services of the opposite parties under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified ?

(2.) THE brief facts as alleged in the claim petitions are that the opposite parties were engaged as casual labour in the Central Railway on 10.07.1988 to work in Shatabdi Express Train after the introduction of Shatabdi Express. The opposite parties were engaged for preparation and supply of food items to the passengers in the said train. They continued to work under the Divisional Commercial Manager (Catering), Central Railway, Jhansi and were also paid their wages. In the meantime, they were made monthly rated casual labour. Accordingly, they become entitled to avail the benefits of railway employees. They were retrenched from services vide order dated 30.09.1994 after following procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "the Act'). The opposite parties filed a claim before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Lucknow. The Tribunal after exchange of pleadings and affidavits, allowed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2002 and found that the retrenchment of the opposite parties under Section 25F of the Act was illegal. The Tribunal further found that if the retrenchment of the opposite parties was at all necessary, the procedure as provided under Section 25N of the Act was to be followed. The opposite parties were also found entitled to get reinstated with full back -wages along with service benefits. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Lucknow, the Union of India through Divisional Commercial Manager (Catering), Central Railway, Jhansi has filed these writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has on the other hand submitted that the opposite parties were engaged not only for the catering service in Shatabdi Train but they also had to perform work at base kitchen, which is clear from the letter issued to the opposite parties, in which it is mentioned that the opposite parties were the employees of Catering Unit, Jhansi. It is not disputed that the opposite parties have worked from 1988 to 1994 and as such they were entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 25N of the Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the retrenchment of the opposite parties under Section 25F of the Act was illegal. It has also been submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the reference made to the Labour Tribunal covered the entire controversy and the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Tribunal while adjudicating the reference examined every aspect of the matter and decided the claim petition within the ambit of reference made.