GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Nisar Ahmad was employed as a casual labourer with the Works Inspector, Bikaner on 18. 4. 77 and the worked intermittently up to 30. 12. 79, when his services are said to have been terminated by a verbal order without following the procedure laid down u/sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Railway Casual Labourer Union thereupon raised a dispute on 6. 9. 83 and the Central Government referred the matter to the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The case of the present petitioner was that Nisar Ahmad did not regularly work from 18. 4. 77 to 30. 12. 79 but had been engaged from time to time intermittently whenever there was work available for him. It was also urged that his services were not terminated by the petitioners but he himself ceased to come to work and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to comply with the provisions of Section 25f. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that although Nisar Ahmad had not put in more than 240 days of work in a calendar year but was regular workmen and his services could be terminated only by complying with the provisions of Section 25g. He, therefore, made an award holding that the termination of Nisar Ahmad's service w. e. f. 30. 12. 79 was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated. He also awarded back wages from 31st Dec. 1977 till he was reinstated. This award has been made on 20. 5. 1988. The petitioner challenges this award by this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) FOUR contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that the dispute was raised very much belatedly and therefore, reference to the Labour Court was not proper and in this connection he relied upon : 1964 (1) LLJ 351-3. His second contention was that as a matter of fact it was not a case of retrenchment as the workman himself ceased to come to work and his services had not been terminated by the employer. In this connection he pointed out that the very fact that the dispute was raised on behalf of the workman after more than 3 years goes to show that it was not a case of retrenchment. He also brought to my notice the fact that during the period from 18. 4. 77 to 30. 12. 79 Nisar Ahmad had not been regularly working but had been working only intermittently and that also goes to show that whenever he wanted to work he came to work and whenever he did not want he did not come. His third contention is that the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court in respect of Section 25g of the Industrial Disputes Act is perverse inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence to show that any person junior to the workman namely Nisar Ahmad had been retained in service while the service of Nisar Ahmad had been terminated. He pointed out that only a casual statement has been made by Nisar Ahmad to the effect that Hari Vallabh and one Tiwari were working with him and they were junior to him. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Judge improperly awarded back wages to the petitioner without taking into consideration the relevant circumstances most important of which was delay and laches on the part of Nisar Ahmad in raising the dispute because if a workman does not raise the dispute within a reasonable time and sits at home silently he cannot be awarded back wages as a reward for his own laches.