KODE ORAON Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the award passed in Reference Case No.20 of 2012 dated 28.05.2014 has been assailed, whereby and whereunder, the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman in favour of the respondent-management by denying the reinstatement in service with back wages.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined the duty of the Nagar Nigam, Ranchi in the year 1982 and continued in service till 15.06.2011 but all of a sudden he has been removed from service without issuing any notice, therefore, he has come on road, hence a dispute has been raised by making an application before the appropriate authority, the matter has been placed before the Conciliating Officer but when no decision has been taken within the stipulated period as provided under the provision of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an application has been filed under the provision of Section 2(A) of the Act, 1947 for demanding reinstatement in service with back wages.

(3.) Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised the issue of perversity in the finding to the effect that the circular, reference of which has been made i.e. on 18.06.1993 wherein the decision was taken to remove all Class-IV employees who have been appointed on or after 01.08.1985 and have been appointed prior to 01.08.1985 and worked continuously for a period of 240 days, they have been decided to be given preference in appointment, in service however, even accepting the plea of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has been appointed after 01.08.1985 even though in view of the subsequent circular issued on 20.05.1996 by which the cut-off date by 01.08.1985 has been extended to that of 31.12.1990 and admittedly the petitioner has been appointed beyond the aforesaid period, therefore, he is entitled to be considered for reinstatement in service but that aspect of the matter has not been considered hence the award is perverse and accordingly not sustainable in the eye of law.