TRILOCHAN MOHANTA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the workmen being the second party members in Industrial Dispute Case No. 17/1998 of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, has assailed the award passed on January 31, 2006. The Industrial Dispute was referred to the Industrial Court by the State Government to determine whether the action taken by the Executive Engineer, Baripada Electrical Division, Baripada, the Opp. Party, in terminating the services of Trilochan Mohanta and Others on June 30, 1995 is legal and or justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to. The workmen were represented by the Working President, O.S.E.B., Workers Association. They alleged that the workmen were working under the management of N.M.R. since 1988 and continued in their, employment till the date of their termination on June 30, 1995 in respect of all the, workmen except one workman, Saroj Kumar Mohanta, whose services were terminated on May 30, 1995. The workmen alleged that the management without any rhyme or reason terminated their services without following the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The management, on other hand, filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that the concerned workmen had not completed 240 days of service in terms of the statutory provisions of the Act in the last preceding year. According to the Management, the workmen were paid their wages for the days they have worked. It is further averred in the written statement that the N.M.R. workers, those who have fulfilled the criteria for engagement in service, their services were regularized during 1995, but the present workmen are concerned, they have not fulfilled the criteria for engagement in service. Hence, they were not considered for reinstatement in service.

(3.) In course of hearing the workmen examined Trilochan Mohanta, W.W.I, and relied upon a certificate indicating his engagement under the management, which was marked as Exhibit 1. On the other hand, the management has neither examined any witness nor relied upon any document in support of its case.