MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ELECTRIFICATION-CUM-SUPPLY DIVISION, TENUGHAT BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND DILEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 14 of 1994 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full back wages and all other consequential benefits including regularization of service.

(2.) THE following dispute was referred for adjudication:

(3.) MR . Rajendra Krishna, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 was a Typist in Tenughat court and he was paid remuneration on the basis of the work taken from him. He did not bring on record his letter of appointment and/or any document to show that he was appointed after following the procedure known to law against any vacant post. Therefore, the finding the Labour court that respondent No. 2 was appointed with effect from 1.1.1989 is perverse. Respondent No. 2 was not a workman and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo) and Section 25F of the Act were not attracted. Relying on - -Branch Manager M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and another v. Shri S.C. Pandey 2006 (2) SC 349 he submitted that even if it is assumed that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act, the Labour court could not order for reinstatement with full back wages including regularisation. He further submitted that in any event petitioner has been paid Rs. 300/ - per month from February, 2003 as per the interim order passed in this case in terms of Section 17B of the Act.