JAIRAJ N SHETTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sandeep Marne, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') joined the service of the Central Railway (hereinafter to be referred as 'the railways') as casual Cook in the Catering Section of the Commercial Department, Central railway, Mumbai V. T. on April 21, 1988. The workman worked with the railways for the period from 21-4-1988 to 30-6-1988, 7-8-1988 to 14-5-1989, 6-4-1990 to 30-6-1990, 2-5-1991 to 30-6-1991.3-4-1993 to 30-4-1993, 16-5- 1993 to 30-6-1993 and 7-4-1993 to 30-6-1994. The petitioner's services came to an end with effect from 1-7-1994. The dispute concerning the petitioner's termination was referred by the appropriate government to the Central government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 9-4-1999 held that the termination of the workman was not legal and justified and directed the railways to reinstate the workman with continuity and pay him all backwages. The railways challenged the award of the Industrial tribunal by filing writ petition. By an order dated 4-7-2003 the learned Single judge allowed the writ petition filed by the railways and set aside the award dated 9-4-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the workman is in appeal before us.

(3.) The reason that prevailed with the learned Single Judge in setting aside the award was that the workman was not in continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination. The learned Single Judge held that it was necessary that the workman had completed 240 and 120 days of service during the period of one year or six months as the case may be preceding the date of termination dated 1-7-1994. On consideration of the facts, the learned Single judge held that the workman had neither completed 240 days in a year nor 120 days in six months preceding the date of termination i. e. 1-7-1994. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge held that there was no question of breach of section 25f and he set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.