STATE Vs. KALANDI CH MALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the award passed in I.D. Case No. 101 of 2000 dated 17.08.2005 whereby and where under the reference has been authorised in favour of the opposite partyworkman.

(2.) Case of the petitioner-State in brief is that the opposite partyworkman has never been allowed to continue in service regularly for the period of 240 days and as such he cannot allowed to get protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 but the Tribunal without appreciating this aspect of the matter has answered the reference by treating the workman in service continuously for a period of 240 days and came to conclusion that the provision of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 has not been followed.

(3.) The case of the workman is that he having been engaged as N.M.R. under the office of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (R & B) Division, Puri and joined his service on 14.10.1992 and continue to work under the said management till the date of termination i.e., 15.01.1998, hence he has continued to discharge his duty under the Management-petitioner continuously for period of 240 days, hence he is entitled to get protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 but before retrenching/terminating, the mandatory provision as contemplated under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 has not been followed which resulted into raising a dispute before the appropriate Government who on failure of conciliation has made a reference, referred it before the Tribunal within its jurisdiction to adjudicate and accordingly the Tribunal had adjudicated the dispute after going into all aspects of the matter answered the reference in favour of the workman.