BASAVARAJ YAMANAPPA HANNUR Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE issue which is required to be decided by this Court is whether the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that he is not entitled to any relief on account of undue delay and latches which has not been satisfactorily explained by the Workman?

(3.) IN nutshell, the facts can be summed up as under: -The petitioner joined as Casual labourer with the respondent no. 2, w. e. f. 01. 10. 1985 and continuously worked up to 30. 11. 1986, till his name was removed from the list of casual mazdoor by an Order dated 20. 11. 1986 and the petitioner was informed not to come to work w. e. f. 01. 12. 1986. It is not disputed that at the time of discontinuing, the petitioner who was employed as a casual mazdoor, the respondent no. 2 did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by this termination of service, the petitioner raised the dispute and that is how this case was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The question for adjudication which was referred by the Tribunal was,