EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL JAIPUR ROAD ELECTRICAL DIVISION JAIPUR ROAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the management against the award dated September 25, 1998 passed in I.D. Case No. 1/1996 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

(2.) The Opp. Parties 2 to 5 - workmen claimed that while working under the management-petitioner as casual labourers since the year 1978, they were disengaged from June 10, 1994 by verbal orders of the management-petitioner in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act'). The workmen approached the Learned Labour Court against their dis-engagement/termination. Conciliation having failed, after receipt of the failure report, the State Government made the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication: "Whether the retrenchment of (1) Abhaya Kumar Das, (2) Gobardhan Routray, (3) Balaram Swain (4) Kanduri Charan Mallik, Casual Labour Roll (CLR) by the Executive Engineer, Jajpur Road Electrical Division, Jajpur Road with effect from June 10, 1994 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what benefit they are entitled? After receipt of the notice, the management-petitioner as well as the workmen filed their respective statement/claim in the said reference case, which was registered as I.D. Case No. 1/1996.

(3.) The case of the management-petitioner before the Tribunal was that the workmen in question were mainly engaged in construction sites whenever such occasion arose during different period & none of them completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. According to the management-petitioner, as the engagement of the workmen was intermittent, no notice was required for termination of their service on completion of the work & in view of the casual nature of their engagement, they were treated as casual workers. Hence, it was pleaded by the management-petitioner that disengagement on completion of work in which the workmen were engaged would not automatically bring the case within the purview of "retrenchment" in view of the temporary nature of their engagement.