GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. HARESH BRIJLAL CHAROTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an Award dated 28-9-1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Bombay (for short, "c. G. I. T. ") on a reference made to it by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its letter dated 13-7-1994. By the aforesaid award the C. G. I. T. has held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the respondent No. 1 herein was not justified and ordered his reinstatement with back wages from 6-1-1992 till his appointment on the basis of the last wages drawn and for treating his services as continuous for other benefits.

(2.) A few facts leading to this petition, in brief, may be summarized as below. The respondent No. 1 Naresh Brijlal Charote was appointed as part time sweeper in Telecom Department, General Manager, Phones (Main), Nagpur, on 15-5-1987. He was nominated by the office of Employment Exchange, Nagpur. He was orally retrenched on 10-10-1991. It is averred by the respondent No. 1 that he was also engaged in A. E. Electrical Stores, Nagpur, where he worked from 1988 to 6-2-1992 and thereafter he was not provided with any work though it was available, which act of the management, according to him, is illegal and amounts to retrenchment. According to respondent No. 1 he was paid Rs. 39. 55 paise per day. He was neither served with one months notice nor paid one months wages in lieu of the notice nor paid retrenchment compensation. The provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "the Act") were thus not complied with. He had worked continuously for more than 240 days but was not made permanent in service by the management so as to deprive him of the benefits of the provisions of the Act, to which he was entitled. It is also averred by the respondent No. 1 that the persons junior to him are still in service. He had, therefore, served the petitioners with notice, but the petitioners did not pay any heed to his request and, therefore, he was constrained to approach the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Nagpur vide application under section 2-A of the Act raising industrial dispute.

(3.) THE petitioners resisted the respondent No. 1s claim vide their written statement (Ex. 4 ). It was their contention that the appointment of respondent No. 1 as a part time sweeper was purely temporary and his services were terminable without any notice. The petitioners denied that there was any oral retrenchment on 10-10-1991, as alleged. According to the petitioners, the nature of work of respondent No. 1 was to clean wash basins, floors latrines, etc. His wages were on hourly basis and he was to work daily for three hours. He was working in three different offices of the petitioners and enhancement in his wages was due to change in price index and as per the directions issued by the Head Office from time to time. The work of respondent No. 1 was not up to the mark. He used to attend the office late and used to remain absent from duty purposely. As his appointment was on daily wages, the question of issuance of notice or payment of compensation in lieu of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. He cannot be said to be full time or casual labourer and, therefore, the schemes like grant of temporary status to the employees and regularization of their services are not applicable to an employee like the respondent No. 1 herein. As such the question of completion of his 240 days of service in a year also does not arise. The provisions of the Act are thus not applicable to the present case.