EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. Y.RAMACHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are one and the same in both these Writ Appeals. Y. Ramachander, the respondent is the workman and appellant is the employer. These two writ appeals are filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in WP No. 4384 and 19333 of 2005 both dated 9.4.2010. The Writ petition No. 19333 of 2005 is filed by the respondent-workman questioning the Award dated 27.9.2004 passed in I.D. No. 231 of 2001 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, in not awarding back wages while passing the Award in his favour by setting aside the termination of his services while W.P. No. 4384 of 2005 is filed by the appellant questioning the very self-same Award in setting aside the termination of services of the respondent and directing the appellant to appoint the respondent as Typist-cum-Clerk. The writ petition filed by the respondent i.e. W.P. No. 19333 of 2005 is allowed holding that he is not entitled for the back wages but entitling him for his reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits such as regularization, fixation of pay and other service benefits. The Writ Petition filed by the employer i.e. W.P. 4384 of 2005 is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, these two appeals are preferred by the Department.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent-workman that he was initially appointed as Assistant Operator (Electrical) vide order dated 29.11.1984 through the media of Employment Exchange in the office of the Assistant Engineer, CPWD, National Police Academy Campus, Shivrampally, Rangareddy District, which was under the control of Director General of Works, CPDS, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and has continuously worked till his services were terminated on 19.12.1984 without giving any, opportunity. When he reported for the duty on 19.12.1984 along with fitness certificate, he was not permitted to discharge the duties on the ground that he was absent for the duty from 9.12.1984 to 18.12.1984. On his persuasion about the illegal discharge, he was taken on duty and discharged duties as Typist-cum-Clerk (LDC) and worked at Hakimpet, Hyderabad, upto 1992 and thereafter he was asked to work at CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and accordingly, he worked there. It is stated that he worked wherever he was asked to work till the date of his oral termination on 27.7.1996 without following section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Questioning the said action, he raised Industrial Dispute. It is his case that his wages used to be paid in the name of Y. Raghu and R. Seetharam, etc. during the period from 1.8.1994 to 31.3.1995 and from 1.4.1995 to 27.7.1996 in the name of Y. Ramachander with a view to create artificial brake in his service by paying the wages in different names, which amounts to unfair labour practice and, therefore, the action of the Department was questioned being violative of sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) A counter was filed in the above I.D. before the Labour Court stating that the workman was engaged as Assistant Operator (Electrical) on NMR basis by the Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Hyderabad Central Electricity Sub-Division No. Ill, CPWD, NPA, Hyderabad, by order dated 29.11.1984 and he worked for a period of ten days and did not turn up for duty. It is seated that NMR is a form of engaging casual labour at work site according to the requirement based on the quantum of work. The causal labour or NMR will be engaged for completion of specific work in a specific time and in the offer of appointment it was specifically stated that the appointment is purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without notice or assigning any reason. It is stated that subsequently, he worked as typist in the office of the HYCSD.I/1, CPWD, Hakeempet for 16 days only in different spells during a large span of four years from August, 1989 to October, 1992. It is stated that in 1993 he worked for 91 days in Sub-Division No. 1/3 and for 39 days in HCD.II, CPWD. In 1995 and 1996 he worked for 18 days and 8 days respectively on job work. It is also stated that he was engaged on typing work on job to job basis wherever there was urgency of work and payment was made to him on job work basis. He was only engaged on exigency of work but never engaged continuously in any vacant post in the department. He was on the rolls of the department on casual basis. It is stated that he has not rendered one year continuous service or 240 days in a year. He was not racruited through Employment Exchange. It is further stated that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions prescribed and regularization of daily rated, casual LDC in Group 'C in any of the subordinate offices cannot be done without passing the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.