EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF CALCUTTA TELEPHONES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an Award dated February 6, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata, in Reference no. 26 of 1997 directing that the workman, i.e., the respondent no. 4 herein shall be deemed to have been continuing in service as before. The petitioner herein was directed to reinstate him in service as a daily rated mazdoor and pay half of the back wages which might be found to be due to him. So far as the claim for realization is concerned the learned Presiding Officer directed that the management might consider it after reinstatement of the respondent no. 4 herein in the light of the circular i.e. exhibit 4 as in the case of the other workmen.

(2.) At the instance of the workman, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(d) and Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for short) referred the dispute to the Tribunal relating to whether the action of the management of Calcutta Telephones in not giving employment to the workman from February 3, 1989 was justified.

(3.) The case of the workman was that he was selected and appointed as a daily rated mazdoor by the Calcutta Telephones with effect from September 1, 1981 initially for 90 days. He joined in 52 Exchange of the Calcutta Telephones. There he worked till November 17, 1987. Then he was transferred to 37 Exchange which he joined on November 18, 1987 and he worked there till November 30, 1988. He applied for leave for his illness which was granted but he had to extend his leave as he was suffering from jaundice and remained on leave till February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989 when he reported for duty with the medical certificate a senior official of the 37 Exchange, even after taking the medical certificate along with application, did not allow him to join his duties. The workman sent a reminder and visited the said official on many occasions. It is his further case that he was told that the Divisional Engineer (Telephones) had referred the matter to the Area Manager since the leave period had been extended by one month. The petitioner has further alleged that although his case was considered for regularization and he appeared before the Assistant Director (Recruitment) on December 26, 1991 he has come to learn that employees junior to him were made permanent.