LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-385

BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On December 04, 2019
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, reference as made has been answered in favour of private respondents No.2 to 4, who admittedly were working with the petitioner - Management, when according to the petitioner, they absented themselves from duty for more than 10 days and never reported for duty after March, 1990, whereas, stand of the private respondents is that their services were terminated on 18.07.1990.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents were appointed as casual labour. They have been performing their work when they left their assignment and did not turn up. Because of the absence on the part of the private respondents, the management should not be held liable for the same and in any case, he contends that the claim of the private respondents would be hit by the provisions of Clause 21 Sub-Clause (ii) of the Standing Orders. His contention is that since the private respondents have not completed more than three months of continuous service with the petitioner -management and were on an assignment for a specified period, they are not entitled to the benefit as has been granted by the Tribunal in the impugned award. Assertion has also been made that the private respondents have not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and therefore, not entitled to the benefit of reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned award dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents has admitted the fact that the private respondents have not completed more than 240 days of service with the petitioner -management in the preceeding twelve months from the date of their termination. He, however, contends that the services of the private respondents have been terminated. In any case, he contends that even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - management is accepted that the case of the private respondents would fall under the provisions of Clause 21 Sub-Clause (ii) of the Standing Orders, the same in any case would not help the case of the petitioner - management. In this regard, he has made a reference to the provisions of Clause 21 Sub Clause (ii) of the Standing Orders to contend that each of the private respondents have admittedly worked for more than 100 days with the petitioner - management and therefore, would have completed more than three months of service. Assertion has also been made that the definition as provided in Clause 21 Sub Clause (ii) does not refer to three months continuous service. It simply mentions three months of service, which admittedly private respondents have completed with the petitioner -management. In any case, even if it is a case of abandonment, private respondents were always ready and willing to join and work with the petitioner - management and if Clause 21 Sub Clause (ii) is taken into consideration, the petitioner - management was required to give ten days notice to the private respondents, which admittedly have not been so given. He, therefore, supports the award dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Tribunal.