MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. UMESH KORGA BHNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment since the point involved is the same. In addition, Writ petitions, out of which these L. P. As. arise, were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the common Judgment. FACTS IN L. P. A. NO. 90 OF 1998: the service of one Kitanna Shetty, who was working as Halwai in the Canteen, came to be terminated and respondent No. 1 was ' appointed by the Departmental Canteen committee at Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange of the appellant on January 1, 1986. There is no dispute that no appointment order or any other candidate was called from the employment Exchange at the time of his appointment. As per the directions of the assistant Labour Commissioner, Kitanna shetty was re-appointed on November 17, 1986. Hence, the service of the respondent No. 1 came to be terminated on November 29, 1986. This came to be challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Central government Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. FACTS IN L. P. A. NO. 94 OF 1998: respondent No. 1 was appointed in november/december 1985 by the departmental Canteen Committee in the central Telephone Exchange Building Canteen of the appellant for serving canteen items to the ladies Retiring Room. Her appointment was made without calling for any candidate from the Employment Exchange. Her services came to be terminated on June 28, 1988 with effect from September 7, 1988 as her appointment was not approved by the Chief General manager. This was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Central government Industrial Tribunal. FACTS IN L. P. A. NO. 95 OF 1998: in December 1982, April-May 1983 and april 1986 Respondents No. 1 to 4 came to be appointed as labourers on daily wages at mhatre Pen Building Canteen of the appellant. On December 31, 1988 the said Exchange was shifted to Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange. Hence, the Canteen and all other employees were shifted. The services of respondents No. 1 to 4 came to be terminated on September 25, 1989. This was challenged by them before the" central Government Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) THE contention of the respondents was that the respondents were 'workmen" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial disputes Act. They have completed 240 days of their service and they were terminated without giving retrenchment compensation and thus violating Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act and without giving one month's notice. Hence, their termination was illegal. This contention came to be accepted by the said tribunal and it has been approved by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petitions came to be dismissed.

(3.) THE appellants challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge by filing the present L. P. As. Earlier, the Division Bench of this Court on March 12, 1998 summarily dismissed them. However, the appellants challenged the same before the Apex Court and the Apex Court remanded the matters to this court to hear and dispose of the same on merits and also to decide the question regarding back wages and continuity of service of the respondents. Hence, these L. P. As. are finally heard.