GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. ZARIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the order dated 20/01/2011, by which the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur answered the Reference, which was referred to it for adjudication, in favour of the workman i.e. the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055/2011.

(3.) The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055 was initially appointed on 21/01/1986 as casual labour with the Chief General Manager, Railway Electrification Project Telecom and thereafter he was transferred to the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Microwave (Survey) from the year 1989. He has worked with the respondent BSNL up to 25/06/1993 when he was given the temporary status by a letter dated 02/03/1988 under the provisions of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme. It appears that by order dated 18/02/1989, regularized 69 mazdoors similarly situated as the petitioner No.1 was, issued with the order of regularization, however, the petitioner No.1 was not. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that he was deprived of various facilities of the regular employees and suddenly on 02/12/2002 the BSNL terminated his services with immediate effect by written order on payment of one month salary on 08/11/2002. He submitted a representation against the said termination as he has already put in 16 years of service continuously. It was his case that prior to the said termination, no chargesheet was issued to him and if any enquiry was completed, then such enquiry was conducted without compliance of principles of natural justice, as at no point of time the depositions or statements were recorded on behalf of the party No.1 in his presence and no opportunity of cross examination was granted to him and thus the alleged enquiry was in utter disregard to the settled principles applicable to the conduct of the departmental enquiries. The issue of the termination of the services of the petitioner No.1 was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The statement of claim was accordingly filed by the petitioner No.1 in the said Reference.