UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAIRAJ N SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The Award dated 9-4-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Refer-ence No. CJIT-2/51 of 1998 is sought to be challenged as being contrary to the provisions of law.

(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned award the learned Advocate for the peti-tioner submitted that the finding arrived at regarding the completion of 240 days as well as 120 days relates to the period from 7-8-1988 to 14-5-1989 and not the period preceding the order of reference and therefore, direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law, besides being that the respondent was employed as a casual workman and not to fill any vacancy in a permanent post. Reliance is also sought to be placed in the decision in the matter of (Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar), reported in 2002 (8)Supreme Court Cases 400 in support of the contention that the workman had not established his case for the grant of relief in the matter and secondly, in the matter of (State oft. N. and another v. M. R. Alagappan and others), reported in 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Lands) 1079 in support of the contention that the respondent being casual workman engaged on need basis, there was no question of direction by the Industrial Tribunal for re-instatement of the workman in service with continuity in service and for payment of back wages. On the other hand, the impugned award is sought to be justified contending that the petitioner had not produced any evidence in support of his case, while the defence of the respondent was duly supported by the evidence on record. Further it is sought to be contended that in writ petition the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference in the award passed by the Industrial tribunal unless the findings are perverse and that the findings in the case in hand are neither perverse nor contrary to the materials on record. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. and another), reported in 1984 (11)L. L. J. 10. Further placing reliance in the matter of (Surendra Kumar Vienna v. Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Newdelhi, reported in A. I. R. 1981 Supreme Court 422, it is contended that continuous service does not mean that it should be continuously from day-to-day during the year but it can be during any period of one year, and what is necessary is to ascertain whether in a year the employee has worked for 240 days. Further placing reliance in the decision in the matter of (G. P. Doval v. , Chief Secretary, government ofu. P.), reported in A. I. R. 1984 Supreme Court 1527, it is submitted that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court in relation to the completion of 240 days pertaining to period from 7-8-1988 to 14-5-1989 cannot be found fault with on the ground of laches or delay in approaching the Court.

(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned award apparently discloses that the relief of re-instatement with continuity of service with back wages has been granted to the respondent in a reference made for adjudication on the point as to whether the action of the petitioner-management in terminating his service w. e. f. 1-7-1994 was without following the procedure and was justified or not. The said relief has been granted basically on two grounds viz. that the respondent had completed 140 days service during the period from 7-8-1988 to 14-5-1989 and therefore, was entitled for protection in terms of section 25 (section 25f) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as "the said act") read with section 25 (b) (sic section 25-B) of the said Act and secondly, on the ground that he has completed 120 days during the said period and therefore termination could not have been effected without issuing 15 days notice.