UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition impugns the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II dated 18th June, 1998, by which the respondent no. 2 has been granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) THE respondent workman hereinafter called "workman" was offered employment by the petitioner as a Laboratory Technician in the Office of the Vice Chairman, Iron Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund Advisory Committee for Goa, Daman and Diu by a Memorandum of 12th March, 1974. On the workman accepting this Memorandum, he was issued an Order of appointment on 25th April, 1974. By this Order of appointment, the workman was informed that he was appointed with effect from 18th March, 1974, on a pay scale of Rs. 130-5-160-EB-8-280-10 plus usual allowances and rates admissible to the Central Government employees from time-to-time. The conditions mentioned in the Memorandum offering employment were also to apply to him. It is the case of the Petitioner hat several memos and admonitions were issued to the workman from time-to-time due to his having committed serious irregularities. On 15th October, 1980, the services of the workman were terminated by informing him that his services were being terminated in accordance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 51 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. At the time of termination from service the workman was informed that he would be entitled to claim pay and allowances for the period of notice at the same rate that he was drawing on that date. Being aggrieved by this Order the workman filed W. P. 111/82 before this Court. While opposing the Writ Petition, a plea was raised by the Petitioner that the workman was employed in an industry and, therefore, had an alternate remedy of raising an industrial dispute and following the provisions of the I. D. Act. In view this the Writ Petition was withdrawn and the workman persued his remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) AFTER the failure of the conciliation proceedings, reference was made for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. Pleadings were filed before the Tribunal. The Petitioner contended in its written statement that the workman was covered by the Temporary Civil Services Rules and, therefore, the workman's services had been lawfully terminated in accordance with these Rules. The Petitioner also relied on the several memos issued to the workman calling upon him to improve as his services were not found satisfactory and as he had committed several acts of "irregularity". It was pleaded that since the workman's services were terminated under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Service Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, there was no question of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act being applicable. It was also pleaded that as there was no retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25-F were not applicable.