CHAIRMAN CENTRAL SILK BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. The writ application has been filed for quashing the award dated May 27, 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 17/2004/4(C)/2004 by which the retrenchment of Respondent No. 2 was held to be bad, illegal, inoperative and void ab initio and it was directed to reinstate him with full back wages and also to make payment of the unpaid salary for the month of December, 1996.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 2 was engaged as a casual labourer in Technical Service Centre (TSC), Purnea under the National Sericulture Project (NSP) of the Central Silk Board on May 16, 1991. He continued as a daily wager for five years and thereafter by an office memorandum dated September 9/10, 1996 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director (PAI), National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Kishanganj, Bihar he was converted as a Time Scale Labourer w.e.f. May 16, 1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 500-10-700 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. By the said memorandum he became entitled to dearness allowance at the rate sanctioned to the Central Government employees from time to time, annual increment, medical allowance, house rent allowance, gratuity at the rate of one month's pay for each completed year of service subject to maximum 15 months pay and his age of superannuation was stated to be 55 years. He was also held to be entitled to other benefits such as leave, festival advance, etc. Thereafter by the office order dated December 31, 1996 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director (PAI) it was stated that as directed by the competent authority of Central Silk Board, Bangalore it is hereby informed that in view of closure of CSB Unit of Project Area, N.S.P., Kishanganj (Bihar) the services of Time Scale Labourers/Casual Labourers of units mentioned in the said order including that of the Respondent No. 2 were No. longer required w.e.f. December 31, 1996(A/N). It was further stated that the said labourers would be paid terminal benefit in lieu of notice as per Clause (a) of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The admitted fact is that while the other labourers received the office order the same could not be served upon the Respondent No. 2. Ultimately the said termination order was sent to him by registered post along with the office memorandum dated January 25, 1997 along with copy of letter dated January 11, 1997 in which it was stated that he should receive the arrear of wage for the period from April 1, 1995 to November 30, 1996, wage for the month of December, 1996 and one month's wage/pay in lieu of one month's notice for termination from the Assistant Director, P2 Basic Seed Farm, Purnea.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Petitioners the Respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute but initially the reference was refused. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court and on the basis of the order passed by the High Court the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by order dated January 15, 2004 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made the following reference before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna: