GENERAL MANAGER , UNION OF INDIA Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dtd. 2/7/2012 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur whereby the reference regarding the reinstatement of the respondents was allowed with a direction of reinstatement with full back wages.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal had erred while directing reinstatement and awarding full back wages. The respondents' employees were engaged as casual labour by IOW (C) Ratlam. They worked up to July-August 1998; therefore, after two years of engagement as casual labour, they should have been granted the status of temporary employee. It was further submitted that it was the basic qualification of their engagement as casual labour and before granting them temporary status, the records as casual labour were scrutinized by the petitioner. When the records were not found proper, respondents were not granted temporary status. It is also contended that their service records were forged. Therefore, they were discontinued from service. A summary procedure was adopted before the discontinuation of services of the respondents. The Tribunal, without giving any finding that respondents were eligible for regular appointment, held that an enquiry was necessary. It is submitted that such a finding is bad in law as they were only casual labourers and were not entitled for any opportunity of hearing. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded full back wages without any proof that the employees were not gainfully employed during the period of termination.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supported the order and submitted that the Tribunal has passed the said order after going through the record and the statements of the witnesses. The employer could not prove that the certificate of "casual labour cards" was forged. The impugned order was stigmatic and, therefore, it was held that the services of even a casual or contract employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order without holding an enquiry. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. UP State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & another (1999) 2 SCC 21, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors (1999) 3 SCC 60, Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 152 and Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Bhopal 2001(3) MPLJ 616. He further argued that after the termination order is held to be illegal, then the respondents' employees are entitled to full back wages as held in the decision by the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (2013) 10 SCC 324 . He further argued that the scope of interference in a writ petition under judicial review against the award passed by the Tribunal is very limited, and interference can only be made in case of error of jurisdiction or serious error of law apparent on the record of judgment, not based on evidence. In support of his aforesaid submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. UP State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & another (1999) 2 SCC 21, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors (1999) 3 SCC 60, Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 152, Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Bhopal 2001(3) MPLJ 616, Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd & another (2014) 6 SCC 434, Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Naresh Kumar Thakur & Ors. Vs. Principal/Executive Director, Civil Aviation Training College, Allahabad (2016) 15 SCC 701.