LAWS(BOM)-1989-1-11

UNION OF INDIA Vs. M Z QUAZI

Decided On January 13, 1989
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, WARDHA Appellant
V/S
M.Z.QUAZI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner union of India, through the Superintendent of Post Offices, Wardha, challenges by this petition only a part of the award dated 27-6-1988 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in Case No. CGIT/lc (R) (92) of 1986 to the extent of the relief of reinstatement awarded to the respondent workman.

(2.) THE undisputed facts in the case as under : the respondent was employed as a Driver with effect from 5th February, 1982. He was engaged to drive the staff jeep which came to be allotted for the first time by the Government and the said vehicle was kept in the administrative control of the Superintendent of Post Officers. The said employment was on daily wages in minimum pay scale of Rs. 250-400. The services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 13th February, 1985 without giving any notice or pay in lieu of the notice. No retrenchment compensation was also paid to the respondent. Upon termination of the employment of the respondent, one Shri Yete was employed from 14-2-1985 on regular basis. An application bearing No. 2 of 1985 is filed by the respondent workman seeking computation of the benefits arising from the employment under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that application is still pending. The petitioner vide their reply dated 28th May 1985 to the notice served by the respondent expressed their inability to reinstate him in service as they had engaged another driver on regular basis.

(3.) THE case as pleaded by the respondent was that the termination of his services was by way of victimisation because he had claimed the benefits of a regular employee like wages, for weekly off days, earned leave, overtime wages, daily travelling allowance, bonus, increment etc. He also pleaded that the termination of his services was against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions as contained in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence he claimed the relief of reinstatement with all consequential reliefs.