PRASANNA KUMAR PATTANAIK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the award dtd. 22/2/2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr.I.D. Case No. 272 of 2001 under Annexure-1 is sought to be quashed partially and modified to the effect that the petitioner-workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits including temporary status as well as permanent absorption under the pay roll of the opposite party-management, what he would have got, had his services not been terminated by the management.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, as is borne out from the record, precisely stated as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the project wing is a permanent wing, which undertakes different projects depending upon the requirement of circle and after a project work is completed, the same is either being handed over to circle or to the maintenance division for its future operation. Since a period of more than 15 years has passed and the work at the project at Aska, where the petitioner was engaged, has been completed long back, denial of the relief of reinstatement is erroneous, contrary to law, against the weight of evidence on record and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Thereby, the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of record having not appreciated the evidence available on record. According to him, after closure of the project work, the petitioner-workman was assigned the duties in the maintenance work at Aska station after 31/7/1997. Thereby, he is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, since he was illegally refused employment in contravention of Sec. 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further contended that being confronted with Ext.31, though the management witness admitted that Ext.31 is the circular relating to temporary status to workers, the Tribunal failed to take note of the said admitted piece of evidence while passing the impugned order, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.