MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at the material time was a workman working in the Public Works Department, Bulling Circle, Purnia. In this application he challenges an award, dated February 28, 1989 given by the Labour Court, Patna, in reference No. 1 of 1985/11 of 1987. The reference arose out of an industrial dispute relating to the termination of the petitioner's service and the terms of the reference was as follows:

(2.) The parties appeared before the Labour Court and filed their respective writtten statements.

(3.) The case of the workman-petitioner was that he was initially appointed on- muster roll as a daily wager. He continuously worked for over three months and thereafter he was appointed in a regular time-sclae of pay as Treasure Guard on a temporary and ad hoc basis. The Workman joined the post of Treasure Guard and discharged his duties to the complete satisfaction of the authority. But on August 26, 1992 he was asked to file a show cause why his appointment may not be terminated because it was made in breach of the Government circulars. The workman gave his reply which did not find favour with the authorities and finally his services were terminated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman it was asserted in no uncertain terms that before terminating his service he was not given one month's pay in lieu one month's notice nor was he given any retrenchment compensation. In other words a case was made out that the termination of his service was bad and non est for not complying with the con-ditons precedent as mandated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.