LAWS(ORI)-2011-7-13

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

Decided On July 05, 2011
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management - Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. has called in question the legality of the award dated 10.9.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. I.D. Case No. 254 of 2001. The opp. party No. 2 - workmen represented by the President, Orissa Mining Workers Federation raised the industrial dispute, which ultimately culminated in a reference made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the following effect:--

(2.) After the parries led evidence before the Tribunal on the issues framed by it, the Tribunal come to the finding in the award, on analysis of the materials on record, that the disputant workmen have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year in their respective posts and no materials have been placed before it that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates have been appointed in the said vacancies. In view thereof, the Tribunal concluded that the workmen are entitled for regularization from the date of their appointment, i.e., with effect from 8.7.1989. With regard to financial benefits, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Management cannot withdraw the financial benefits on the ground that there was objection regarding appointment of the workmen and when they have rendered continuous service, they are entitled to get the annual increment and other financial benefits. Hence, withholding of the annual increments by the Management is not justified. On the above basis, the Tribunal concluded that the workmen are entitled for regularization with effect from 8.6.1989 and they are entitled to get their annual increments which was withhold or stopped by the first party - Management.

(3.) It was strongly urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate that the employment provided to the disputant workmen was temporary in nature and was only for a specific period, i.e., till the appointment of suitable candidates. It was further urged that the Presiding Officer has mis-interpreted the decision in the case of Registrar (General) of India and another v. V. Thippa Setty and others, 1998 8 SCC 690; and has wrongly directed retrospective regularization in respect of the disputant workmen. Learned Counsel further urged that the Presiding Officer has ignored the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1997 75 FLR 25 , and Subedar Singh and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and another, 2000 87 FLR 941 .