PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NEW BONGAIGAON Vs. UTTAM BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. B.P. Todi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The legality and correctness of the impugned award dated December 28, 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference No. 1(C) of 1999 has been assailed in this writ petition. By the impugned order dated December 28, 1999 it was held by the Tribunal . that the petitioner was not justified in not regularising the service of the respondent No. 1, workman, as Group D employee and as the said action was illegal and improper. Answering the reference in favour of the workman, the Tribunal accordingly directed the petitioners to engage the respondent No. 1 in his service even on casual basis, if there was any regular post at present and regularise the respondent No. 1 as soon as vacancy arises.

(3.) The factual matrix of this case in a nutshell is that the respondents, alleging the illegal termination of service, raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour commissioner, Guwahati, who in turn by his communication dated June 12, 1998 submitted the report to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati raising the dispute whether the action of the petitioner in not regularising the service of the respondent No. 1 was legal and justified and if not, to what relief the workman was entitled to. The reference before the Industrial , Tribunal was numbered as l(C)/99. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 alleged that he worked under the petitioners as Peon since March 23, 1994 as casual workman for continuous period of 270 days and the Principal of the Vidyalaya assured him for regularisation of his service as and when vacancy would arise. But instead of regularising his service, the workman was removed from service on and from January 20, 1995 without giving any benefit as per provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act"). It was further contended that at the time of release there were 5 (five) vacancies in Group D employee out of which 3 (three) were filled up by transfer and remaining vacancies were filled up by holding interview of the candidates sponsored by the local Employment Exchange ignoring the entitlement of the respondent No. 1.