UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBHASH P. DUNAGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India challenges an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 12th April, 1996 in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Respondent Was employed as a casual worker by the Central Railway on 24th March, 1978 and was assigned the work of a 'casual painter'. There is no dispute about the fact that the First Respondent worked with the railways between the following periods viz. 24th March, 1978 to 18th June, 1978. 21st June, 1978 to 18th August, 1978. 25th September, 1978 to 18th January, 1985. According to the workman, he had also worked during the period 26th August, 1985 and 29th July, 1986. On the other hand, the case of the railway administration was that the workman had left services on his own on 19th January, 1985 and was subsequently engaged on 26th August, 1985 and that he was in service until 5th August, 1986. Be that as it may, the grievance of the workman was that on 30th July, 1986, his services came to be terminated wrongfully and illegally without complying with the mandatory requirements under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the statement of claim, the workman had adverted to the fact that he had been sent for medical examination, but that he was declared as unfit for absorption in Grade C -I. The relief which was prayed for was for a declaration that the action of the railways in terminating his services from 30th July. 1986 was illegal and wrongful and that reinstatement with full back wages together with continuity of service be allowed.

(2.) THE case of the railway administration was that the First Respondent was initially considered for placement in B -I category. Though the workman was sent up for medical examination with reference to the aforesaid category on 26th December, 1984, he ultimately reported at the Railway Hospital at Byculla only on 6th April, 1985 stating that he had lost the medical memo. Thereafter, according to the railway administration, the workman was re -engaged on humanitarian grounds on 26th August, 1985 and was once again sent for medical examination on 8th August, 1986. On 8th October, 1986, the workman was found to be unfit for employment in the B -I category. Subsequently, on 26th April, 1988, the workman was sent up for medical examination in the C -I category and there also, he was reported to have failed the medical examination on 21st February, 1989. According to the administration, efforts were also made to explore the possibility of re -engaging the workman in medical category Oil, but there was no vacancy and the workman himself refused to opt for the aforesaid medical category. Finally, it was also stated that on 21st July, 1989, the workman had collected his Casual Labour Service Card. The workman was not allowed to resume duty as he did not fulfil the medical requirement.

(3.) FROM the material which has emerged on the record of the case, the admitted position is that the workman had been engaged by the railway administration as a casual workman between March and June, 1978 and thereafter after a short break of service between June and August, 1978. The name of the workman was thereafter borne on the rolls of the administration as a casual workman again after September, 1978 and according to the railway administration this continued to be the position until January, 1985. The Industrial Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the services of the workman had been continued as a casual workman until 29th July, 1986 and the witness for the administration admitted in the course of his crossexamination that the workman had completed 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the termination of service on 29th July, 1986. While the Industrial Tribunal has accepted the case of the administration that the workman was re -engaged on 26th August, 1985, the Tribunal has found that he had continued in service until 29th July, 1986. These are essentially findings of fact which do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.