TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. SHASHI KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of LPA No. 18 of 2007 and LPA No. 19 of 2007 as similar question for determination is involved in both the appeals. LPA No. 18 of 2007 has arisen out of CWP No. 561 of 2004 whereas LPA No. 19 of 2007 has arisen out of CWP No. 563 of 2004; both the writ petitions were decided by learned Single Judge on 3.5.2007 by separate judgments.

(2.) The case of workmen was that they were engaged on 29.9.1995 as daily rated labourers upto .31.7.1996, their services were terminated on 1.8.1996. The workmen had filed writ petition No. 1592/96. The High Court on 9.8.1996, directed the management to re-engage the workmen on the same terms and conditions on which they were earlier working. CWP No. 1592/96 was dismissed on 29.10.1996 and the interim order was vacated. The High Court observed that the matter is governed by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is open to workmen to approach the Tribunal. The workmen thereafter filed O.A. No. 1080/HP/96 before Central Administrative Tribunal and on 1.11.1996 the Tribunal directed the management to maintain status quo as existed on 1.11.1996. O.A. No. l080/HP/96 was dismissed on 17.9.1998 with liberty to workmen to pursue their claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act) as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. The workmen raised the demand. In LPA No. 18 of 2007 the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide letter dated 21.10.1999 had referred the following dispute for adjudication:

(3.) The respondent Shashi Kamal submitted his statement of claim before respondent No. 2 in case No. ID 224/99. The respondent Raj Kumar submitted his claim in case No. ID 223/99. The workmen pleaded that they were engaged as daily rated mazadoors on 29.9.1995 and continued upto 31.7.1996, their services were terminated on 1.8.1996. They had completed more than 240 days in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 but all of sudden in the year 1998 the services of workmen were again' terminated without following procedure prescribed under the Act. In the year 1996 some vacancies were available with the management. The names of workmen were sponsored by employment exchange on the basis of their experience. They were interviewed alongwith other candidates but they were ignored. It has been pleaded that management has violated Sections 25-F, G, H of the Act while terminating the services of the workmen.