BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. DEVI DITTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners through the medium of this petition filed in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek, quashing of the Judgment/Award dtd. 30/9/2005 (for short 'Impugned Award') passed by the respondent No.5- Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal' for short) on the ground that the Award is against the facts and law as the finding recorded by the Tribunal is utterly perverse.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondents 1 to 4 amongst others, were working as casual labourers and their services were discontinued and an application was preferred by the twelve casual labourers against their disengagement before the Government and the Central Government referred the dispute with respect to their disengagement to Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Chandigarh, which rejected the Reference vide Award dtd. 9/11/1998. Thereafter, the workmen filed a writ petition SWP No. 1308/1999 before this Court challenging the Award of the Tribunal and this Court vide judgment dtd. 27/7/2001 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by remanding back the case to the Tribunal, with a direction to dispose of the Reference within a period of three months. In compliance to the Court order, the Tribunal disposed of the matter vide Award dtd. 30/9/2005, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners being aggrieved of the impugned Award dtd. 30/9/2005, have challenged the same on the grounds that the workmen's cases had been considered, in terms of the Policy for Regularization of labourer in the year 1989, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, the workmen under Reference including respondents had been found not to be covered by the Policy, as such, they were not entitled to be regularized; that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not been able to prove their continuation/completion of 240 days in a particular year, except filing the affidavits without any documentary proof and on the contrary the petitioners herein had already filed the details on the basis of which the Reference of the respondents was initially dismissed by the Tribunal; that the Tribunal later on, after remand of the Reference has drawn an adverse inference against the management for non production of record and has reached to the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 4 have completed more than 240 days in a year and are thus entitled to reinstatement. It has been alleged that the Tribunal has wrongly assumed that the petitioners herein have completed more than 240 days as the management failed to produce the record, as the same is totally unjustified and finally prayed that the award made by the Tribunal be quashed.