PARSHURAM YALLAP KOTEKAR Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER RATNGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a casual mazdoor/ Coolie, under the respondents is aggrieved by the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in reference No. CGIT 15 of 1995.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was employed as a casual mazdoor at Sawantwadi, District Ratnagiri on 1st Dec. 1985. His services were terminated with effect from 1st Jan. 1987. According to him, the said order of termination was illegal, improper and in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). According to the petitioner, he had written a number of letters to the concerned authority and had also visited the office on a number of occasions with a hope that he would be re-employed. It appears that the petitioner received a letter on 12th May 1992 from the respondents that since the break in service was more than five years, his request for re-employment could not be considered. The petitioner, therefore, ap APPEARANCES Mr. Makarand Kale i/b. P.M. Pradhan for respondents. proached the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Goa, on 19th Feb. 1992 praying for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Central Labour Commissioner commenced and completed the conciliation proceedings and submitted his report to the Central Government. Finally, the Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication by its order of reference on 13th May 1994.

(3.) The petitioner filed his statement of claim setting out the facts that he was employed as a casual mazdoor from 1st Dec. 1985 and that he had completed more than 240 days continuous service and that his services were terminated with effect from 1st Jan. 1987 in violation of mandatory provision of Sec. 25-F of the Act. The respondents filed their written statement to contest the claim of the petitioner. The issue of the industry was not pressed by the respondents and, therefore, the Tribunal had not decided the same. However, the Tribunal also observed that in view of the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa, reported in 1978(1) LLJ 349 , the industry carried on by the respondents is an industry. The Tribunal found from the oral and documentary evidence that the petitioner had completed 240 days continuous employment. The Tribunal has found from the records of the respondents that he had completed 295 days continuous employment from 1st Dec. 1985 to 31st Dec. 1986. The Tribunal found the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had not completed 240 days continuous employment was not acceptable, being contrary to the records maintained by the respondents themselves. The Tribunal has also found that there was no written contract between the petitioner and the respondent employer to show that the petitioner was employed only for a particular job or for a particular period. The Tribunal has specifically found that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the exception of Sec. 2(00) (bb) of the Act. On the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal also recorded that the respondents had not complied with the mandatory condition of Sec. 25-F of the Act and the Tribunal, therefore, held that the order of termination was illegal being in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act. Surprisingly, though the tribunal held that termination order was not justified, it had not granted the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It is now well settled that once the order of termination is held to be illegal and improper, the normal rule to be followed is that of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, unless the employer on the basis of cogent material satisfies the Tribunal that there should be a departure from the aforesaid normal rule. In the present case, the respondents have not pleaded and proved any such ground to enable the Tribunal to depart from the rule of reinstatement . In my opinion, if the order of termination is in violation of Sec. 25F of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to get the normal relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. I am, however, not inclined to grant full back wages to the petitioner for two reasons viz.,