UNION OF INDIA Vs. P MAHIPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.50 of 1991 dated 5-10-1993 is challenged by the Union of India, represented by its Sub Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Medak.

(2.) The 1st respondent was engaged as casual labourer with effect from 1-4-1986. He alleged that though he was initially engaged as casual labourer, he was asked to perform the duty of Telephone Operator, with effect from 2-5-1986 and thereafter he was engaged on miscellaneous works at the Telephone Exchange till the end of May 1987. Complaining that he was discharged without issuing any notice or complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner refuted the claim of the 1st respondent. It was its case that the 1st respondent was engaged as casual labourer in April 1986 and he was engaged as such till February 1987 and thereafter since there was no work, he was discharged. It was also contended that even at the time of engagement, the 1st respondent was informed that he would be continued as long as the work exists and he shall not have any right to be regularised or continued after the completion of the work. A declaration was also secured to that effect. The petitioner flatly denied that the 1st respondent was engaged as Telephone Operator at any point of time. The Industrial Tribunal, through its Award dated 5-10-1993, took the view that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent was contrary to Section 25F of the Act. However, it went further and held that the 1st respondent was entitled to be regularised as Telephone Operator, reinstated into service with full back wages, continuity of service, protection of seniority and other attendant benefits.

(3.) Sri R.S.Murthy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government, submits that the 1st respondent was never engaged as Telephone Operator and, at any rate, the question as to whether he is entitled to be regularised as Telephone Operator, cannot constitute the subject matter of the Industrial Disputes. He states that the Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of the Industrial Dispute in holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to be regularised as Telephone Operator. So far as the direction as to reinstatement and back wages is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the engagement of an individual as casual labourer, by its very nature, is work specific and once the work or project for which the individual is engaged is completed, such a casual labourer cannot be continued at all.