SURYA KANT MANDAL Vs. MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, we have been called upon to examine the sustainability of the judgment dated 23.3.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 576 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the award dated 27.12.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad for reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages has been set aside.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that appellants herein were allegedly engaged by the then Chairman of Mineral Area Development Authority in the year 1983 and later terminated in January, 1984 allegedly without any reasons. Termination order was challenged by some of the appellants along with others in C.W.J.C. No. 158 of 1984(R) before this Court. This writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.4.1984. While upholding the termination, this Court asked the Board to scrutinize the cases of such of the employees who claim their initial appointment to be regular and review their cases. It is stated that their cases were not reviewed and having failed to seek any relief the workmen approached conciliation authority. On failure of the conciliation, reference was sought under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Government of Bihar i.e. the appropriate Government vide its notification dated 20.7.1996 referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Dhanbad which came to be registered as Reference Case No. 6/96. The Labour Court vide its award dated 27.12.1999, pronounced on 17.10.2000, set aside the termination and ordered for reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages. This award of the Labour Court again became subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 576 of 2001. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge; hence, this appeal before us.

(3.) TO support his contentions, it is stated that under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act any kind of termination of workmen other than by way of punishment is retrenchment. According to learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, whenever retrenchment is to be made principles of 'First Come Last go' incorporated under Section 25G has to be followed and in the present case appellants have been terminated without following this principle. It is stated that large number of juniors engaged in the same manner have been retained in service and regularized whereas appellants have been shown the door and thus findings of learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside and award of the Labour Court is to be restored.