RAM BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.18154, 18001 & 18014 of 2011. Since the issue in question is common and the workmen are working with the same employer, facts have been taken from CWP No.18154 of 2011 titled Ram Bhagat Vs. Union of India & others.

(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the petitionerworkman claimed that he was appointed with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in the year 1978, on daily wages, as a Tank Truck Driver. He remained in service till February, 1987 and the intermittent breaks in his service, during the period of employment, were due to no fault on his part. His services were terminated illegally in February, 1987, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') and in violation of principles of natural justice no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to him.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondent -Management, it is pleaded that the workman was engaged as a casual daily worker from 1981 to 1984 and the total period of engagement was 209 days in 4 years and the claim was misconceived. The workman had been working with other companies and cannot file any claim against the Management and the claim was highly belated and liable to be rejected. He had never been appointed as a regular employee of the Corporation. It is specifically denied that he had completed 240 days of service in one calendar year and therefore, the reference was without any basis. Specific details of the period of service were given to show that in the year 1981, he worked for 16 days, in the year 1982, he worked for 55 days, in the year 1983, he worked for 135 days and in the year 1984, he worked for 3 days. It was submitted that there was no employer -employee relationship between the Management and the workman and therefore, the claim petition may be dismissed.