THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER AQUACULTURE (CIFA) Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY of the award dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for short 'the Tribunal') in I.D. Case No.30 of 2005 has been assailed by the Management of Central Institute of Fresh Water Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar (for short 'CIFA') in W.P.(C) No.9593 of 2007 and by the ten disputant workmen through their Union -CIFA Shramik Sanghain W.P.(C) No.11980 of 2007.

(2.) THE award was passed in response to following reference received from the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour under letter No. 42012/3/2005, copy of which is at Annexure -7 to W.P.(C) No. 9593 of 2007: -

(3.) STAND of the workmen before the learned 'Tribunal was that as each of the disputant workmen had worked for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding their disengagement in June, 2001, refusal of employment to them without notice or retrenchment benefit was violative of provisions under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act') for which they are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. The Management took the stand that disputant workmen and Ors. had been engaged on need basis in different time bound projects, on completion of which they were disengaged. After their disengagement, 99 workmen including the present disputants through their Union -Kalinga Shramik Sangha raised an industrial dispute in course of which a tripartite settlement, copy of which is at Annexure -1 to W.P.(C) No.9593 of 2007, was arrived at in terms of which 60% of them were given employment through contractors. In view of such settlement in course of conciliation, the disputants are estopped from raising the present dispute. It was also averred in the written statement that since the engagement of the disputants was on need basis to attend to menial jobs in different projects, termination of their engagement upon closure of projects could not be regarded as retrenchment so as to attract the provisions of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act.